“Legalization” not in Drug Czar’s vocabulary, because it legally cannot be there
Monday, June 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pm | By: Radical Russ
From the ever-knowledgable Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs. According to the “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998″ the director of the ONDCP
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that– 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
This also explains why the attempts to get the Drug Czar to comply with the Data Quality Act, the law that requires government not to lie about scientific data, may be pointless:
Application of Anti-Lobbying Laws to the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Open Letter to State Level Prosecutors, B-301022, March 10, 2004
Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director’s letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. Clearly, the Deputy Director’s statements reflect one perspective regarding marijuana – a perspective that is disputed by others with different viewpoints. However, ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for “taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use” of certain controlled substances such as marijuana – a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director’s statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director’s individual statements in detail.
He’s required by law to lie, so why bother checking whether his statements are lies?
[...] the people of our country start to get what we want? when laws like this are overturned read: “Legalization” not in Drug Czar’s vocabulary, because it legally cannot be there |… __________________ strains that have been "tested" by me: OG Kush, Master Urkle(master [...]
[...] the law requiring the government not to tell lies and use SCIENCE falls flat on its face. enjoy! “Legalization” not in Drug Czar’s vocabulary, because it legally cannot be there |… __________________ strains that have been "tested" by me: OG Kush, Master Urkle(master [...]
Remove from 1.
Interesting, a new article just on this subject.
http://tr.im/qko9
Coincidence?
It’s beautiful isn’t it?!! ..the ONDCP is required by law to forever oppose legalization, and when they do our legislators say “look, the ONDCP opposes legalization so it must be a bad thing”, so they continue to vote against it.
And maybe even worse, they all say that “if the people wanted the law changed it’d be changed”, which is completely nonsense. This law has NOTHING to do with what the people want.
It’s almost as beautiful as saying marijuana hasn’t passed the FDA’s testing, so it can’t be safe, while NIDA doesn’t let anyone grow it so it could be tested by the FDA.
1. “Marijuana is dangerous and must remain illegal!”
2. “Why?”
3. “The science isn’t there!”
4. “OK, let us do the science!”
5. “We can’t do that.”
6. “Why not?”
7. Go to Line 1
Oh yes, there’s no question that the ONDCP, FDA, NIDA and DEA are in bed with each other!
And speaking of the DEA, doesn’t it seem odd that the primary agency enforcing the prohibition is also the very agency you must petition in order to get marijuana rescheduled out of Schedule I?
The DEA not only enforces the prohibition, they also decide whether it exists at all! This is a clear conflict of interest. We have no way to know whether they’re working to protect society or their jobs.
I saw this in a movie once I think it’s called… Catch 22 ?…mmmm…It is funny as a movie but the problem is that it is also reality and people choose to turn a blind eye to any situation that gets worded in this way..just watch the movie again for a refresher course as needed. Reality is out the window as an option due to wording and to me it’s too funny….unfortunately this also shames us and we don’t care and refer back to catch 22 type wording. When will grow up as a nation I don’t know…
What would happen if he were requires to testify under oath? Than what law takes precedent?
That’s a good question. I think he’d couch answers in CYA-speak, like “It is the official position of the ONDCP that…” because then it would be true, no matter what lie he told.
I think Rob’s point is.. at that point any creditability that was left to the office would evaporate….like forever…..
And this is the other edge of the double edged MMJ. Extensive use/study of MMJ will undoubtedly force the re-classification of Cannabis to a Schedule 2 narcotic, then the above law becomes null and void as it only pertains to Schedule 1 drugs.