Aww, that's so kind to give him the benefit of the doubt like that.
That guy just got the pointy end of the bow tie.
"Pretends" though of course he has a built-in advantage
If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence.
My son got busted with pot, but he got sent into a teen diversion program. He had to go to Teen Court and do a Chinese-communist grade self-criticism: that he knows how dangerous it is and how smoking it will ruin his future and it will go on his Permanent Record if he smokes again. He rolled his eyes, groveled as required, and then asked me if I thought they really believed that. They are losing the war on weed and they are convincing a 2 or 3 generations so far to disrespect the law. (I just told my son to remember our friend who smoked too much and messed up his life, educate himself, and stay out of jail.)
- Abuse of prescription drugs is the "top priority" of the DEA (at least he's following the party line).
- If medical marijuana is legalized, it will become a prescription drug, therefore "abused" even more than it is now.
- Won't someone think of the children?
Problem with marijuana is it ain't patented none.
Why some ol' 'billies down in yokey could be fabricatin' it!
This guy probably needed a good, stiff drink after that.
The stupidest part is that his "won't someone think of the children" argument at the end proves Rep. Blumenauer's point exactly. The very reason parents of kids hooked on prescription drugs (read opiates) are concerned about marijuana legalization giving the wrong impression is because jerkoffs like this guy are giving them the false impression that marijuana is just as dangerous. This, as the representative is trying to point out, can have the adverse affect. "Well I tried pot, and it didn't seem like that big of a deal. So these pills can't be as dangerous as they say either." We need to fire all of these asshole 'drug policy' bureaucrats and get some real scientists/doctors in those positions. Ones who can answer direct questions honestly without towing the propaganda line.
When I was a teenager, my dad's advice was "Never trust a cop, and never admit anything." I still feel the same way, and that's pretty sad, because I generally like social order and believe that rule of law is a good thing.
At least the deputy director of drug policy doesn't have to pretend to be a worthless, evil, lying sack of shit. He's got that one covered. Apparatchiks like him are what the expression "the banality of evil" was coined for.
That's my Earl!
Unfortunately, I haven't lived somewhere where I could vote for him for several years, but I'm hoping that'll change before too long.
And yet I can't help feel that Mr Blumenauer (or anybody else) would have blasted Mr Botticelli for giving straight answers about this same subject only a couple of years ago.
Sure its good that there is an intention of being frank about this, but it wasn't long ago legislators were playing the "won't somebody think of the children" card and put people like Mr. Botticelli in place to enforce policy.
Cause it seems to be true (to me at least) that avoiding the truth is just plain stupid, but when the Rep starts playing the blame game, you know he's not exactly looking for the truth either.
IDK, maybe I'm just being too cynical.
These parents who have first hand experience of the dangerous message legalisation sends are the ill-informed boobs they always trot out to speak on the side of the continuation of the war on drugs. Just because your kid ODed doesn't make your opinion any more valid: in fact I would argue it makes it far less objective as confirmation bias is likely to lead such parents to blame the drugs themselves because there's no way the problem could've been little Johnny and his lack of impulse control.
Alcohol is far worse in terms of addiction and harm than other drugs combined, yet alcohol sale and consumption is promoted and lobbied for, funding congressturds to keep with business-as-usual. I've said it before and I'll say it again: thanks a whole bunch America for poisoning world drug policy with paranoid, ill-informed bullshit.
If you believe that rule of law is a good thing, never trusting a cop seems like perfectly sensible advice.
I agree that the answers the questions asked were straight forward; however, I think it is disrespectful to not allow the witness to answer fully. Some answers need to be expounded on and others are more nuanced than simply "yes" or "no." The representative was acting like an attorney (he might well be one) in court who knows if can ask a simple question and force a limited answer he can make a point without allowing a witness to dispute it. I recognize that pot is less addictive than cocaine and amphetamines, but I would at least give the witness time to make his point back. If this is truly a hearing to gather data rather than make points and speeches, then you need to ask your questions, hear the answer and then go back and ask a follow-up question. But this isn't that, it is a congressional hearing and that means it is just a political forum. Too bad.
Botticelli is stuck looking like an idiot because drug policy is idiotic.
Blumenauer is a dick here. His entire m.o. is dickish. He cuts the guy off before he can finish any sentence. This is what the Republicans do to climate scientists. This is not testimony. This is grandstanding. This is a ritual beating. I guess Botticelli had it coming, but it sure isn't democratic process.