A Rebuttal To Kevin Sabet About Marijuana Policy

Almost exactly a month ago - someone named Kevin Sabet - formally a drone at the Office of National Drug Control Policy under Bush and Clinton - wrote a piece that appeared in Hempnewstv.wordpress.com titled "The price of legalizing pot would be too high" - to which I offer a rebuttal point for point.

Kevin begins with talking about how Schwarzenegger called for a discussion about Pot Legalization (due to budget problems) and that the governor was responding to "new public opinion polls showing greater interest in the policy idea" and then goes on to say "and with the mounting problems associated with the drug trade in Mexico and here in the U.S., it is hard to blame anyone for suggesting that we at least consider all potential policy solutions."

Well, at least Kevin got one point right - the governor was indeed floating a trial balloon -- but NOT because of peoples interest being due to "the mounting problems associated with the drug trade" --- NO, Kevin - policy maven - he was responding to the WASTE of money not being collected in taxes - a typical politician view suddenly given `cover' by the national and state polls about taxing and legalizing the drug. Sorry you missed that point Kevin.

Then, Kevin, the drone from the National Drug Control Office says "Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits". So, let's take a look at ALL of the impressive (not) things that the Knowledgeable Kevin has to enlighten us with. The first point Kevin the policy wonk wants to make is "What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, health-care costs would rise and productivity would suffer."

I'll wait a moment while all those smarter than this policy wonk absorb the stupidity of the words "the already high costs of marijuana use". Let's see, `accidents would increase' ----- alas, Kevin, the policy wonk, must not be aware that `stoned drivers' are NOT `drunk drivers' and indeed in tests have been shown to be even more cautious than `straight' drivers. So, point one - totally unfounded.

And, so therefore,`health care costs' --- would NOT rise ---- despite Kevin's ideas from being surrounded by straights for years in the Drug Control office. So, point two - totally unfounded. Next, `productivity would suffer' -- you'll notice, in the link that Kevin offers NO proof or even reasoning on this point http://hempnewstv.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/the-price-of-legalizing-pot-would-be-too-high/ -- So, point three --- show me the data Kevin - I don't believe you.

Next, Kevin does what any good policy wonk for the government does -- looks at the usage of the legal HARD drug of alcohol - noting how the taxes collected do not in any way reflect the harm the product does to society or the cost it brings to society. The wonks call this the `diversion facts' - he does the same for the costs that tobacco bring to society - in comparison to the taxes that tobacco brings in and with a flair says " our two already legal drugs — alcohol and tobacco — offer chilling illustrations of how an open market fuels greater harms"

Are you sick to your stomach yet? Can you believe that the word `right for an adult to choose' hasn't been mentioned? Believe me, it gets worse - as it only can when listening to a policy wonk advocate. So, he continues "Commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance. High profits make aggressive marketing worthwhile for sellers. Addiction is simply the price of doing business."

Yeah, I thought that line would bring up your vomit.

First, or rather, fourth -- Commercialization is VERY unlikely to be the case if pot is legalized --- as I believe that all `marketing' would be illegal -- we are VERY unlikely to see BC bud ads - simply being available is all the advertising that would be needed. Too bad that Kevin doesn't understand that -- so, point four - unfounded. Next up -- Kevin's point that being legal would further the social acceptance --- well, Kevin, you are right --- SO WHAT?

Then we are hit with what I assume the wonk thinks is his best point -- `addiction is the price' ----------- I mean, what can one expect out of a policy wonk within the Drug Control Office ----------- Kevin -- I suggest you look up the word and find some PROOF that pot is addictive like tobacco (nicotine) OR alcohol. Even writing the words Kevin makes your whole article stupid on the face of it -- if your worry is `ADDICTION'. It would be laughable if it wasn't probably true that you and your cronies believe it. Nevertheless, point five - laughable.

You would think, that by now, Kevin has trotted out all of his lousy stupid points, right? Hardly, he goes on next with: "Would marijuana use rise in a legal market for the drug? Admittedly, marijuana is not very difficult to obtain currently, but a legal market would make getting the drug that much easier. Tobacco and alcohol are used regularly by 30 percent and 65 percent of the population, respectively, while all illegal drugs combined are used by about 6 percent of Americans." All I can say to this is -- Kevin, get your `facts' straight -- tobacco is currently used by 21-24% --- alcohol by about 50% (in the last year) and illegal drugs -- mainly pot -- by about 10%.... One should certainly hope that folks in charge of dispensing hard facts would have them a little better than this slop. But, Kevin doesn't -- obviously -- then again, why would someone in the Drug Control office care about things like Facts.

Next, Kevin has the audacity to use these words: "An honest debate on marijuana policy also carefully considers the costs of our current approach. Arrest rates for marijuana are relatively high, reaching about 800,000 last year. " Kevin, 800,000 is `relatively high'? You have got to be shitting me? Are you F-ing serious? He then goes on to say that serving jail time is relatively rare for pot -- tell that to the 20,000 held in pre-trial detention based on the last estimate. Do you think, Kevin, that 20,000 in jail for POT EVERYDAY is `relatively rare'? And, Kevin, would the 800K need lawyers? And, Kevin, would the 800K pay fines? Oh, and Kevin, you are aware that lawyers love having that business right - of course you are -- and of course you know that lawyers are one of the biggest supporters of BOTH political parties.

You would think that enough shit had come out of his mouth by now - but no - he continues "Finally, legalizing marijuana would in no way ensure that the most vicious drug-related problems — violence, economic-related crime, street gang activity — would disappear." One doesn't find someone this stupid very often, right readers? Yeah, Kevin you are right - Pot is NOT related to violence, economic related crime or street gang activity ---- SO F'ing what?

So, after all these shitty non-valid points -- Kevin brings home his ideas with "Moving beyond the simplistic and unrealistic option of legalization, what can we do to reduce marijuana use and the costly harms it brings?" Kevin, wake up, it's the LAWS that are the costly harm! And then finishes with "an open market for the stuff? That doesn’t pass the giggle test.'

NO, Kevin - it's your logic and facts that don't pass the giggle test.


More links to get under your skin:
During my 18 years of police service I was sent to zero calls because of the use of marijuana and about 1300 caused by alcohol. http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1554485.html Maybe Kevin needs to read this.

Subway Will Use Phelps in Ads Despite Bong Photo http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10002843/subway-will-use-phelps-in-ads-despite-bong-photo/

Law enforcement group launches drug legalization campaign http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=3001 The politicians are going to be very lonely when the cops stop enforcing their stupidity.

Australia town bans bottled water - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8141569.stm