The issue over the legalization of marijuana is a very heated one these days. It’s also very complicated. Federal law and state laws clash.
It’s confusing.
An intelligent, mature airing of opinions is not only good, but necessary.
But I have to say I found it a little bothersome when I read a press release by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association on the matter. The language used was not very sophisticated.
It resorted to name calling. It only undermined its effectiveness. I think its members deserve better.
The release attacked the Marijuana Policy Project’s (MPP) efforts to fire DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, who was critical of President Obama’s comments about pot. Obama said it was no worse than alcohol. He essentially said it wasn’t that big of a deal, though he said he didn’t recommend his children smoke.
The release referred to the marijuana organization as “pot-loving” and suggested the group made the decision to remove Leonhart “perhaps while under the influence of a mind altering substance.”
The association’s president Jon Adler then said: “We do not subscribe to the “smoke a doobie and balance budget” economic theory.” (Whatever that means.)
Washington is already full of hot air and divisive dialogue. I think the Association would serve its members better by issuing forceful statements that have a little more sophistication.
Well put, good sir. Thank you.
The “war on drugs” has been an absolute disaster. We spend lots of money chasing our tails in an attempt to eradicate this problem and what has it actually achieved?
We are long overdue for a national debate on decriminalizing drugs. If we have an honest debate and look to developing new ideas instead of dismissing anything that smacks of “retreat” from the war on drugs, we might find solutions that actually work.
As for FLEOA’s rant…that is just a typical reaction to a perceived threat to the livelihood and purpose of some of its members.
Those most resistant to change are usually those who find comfort, security and relevance in the status quo.