The stupidity hurts

(I'm just 6 minutes too late to submit this one!)

Found this on Dangerous Minds:

Why is someone as blinkered as Michelle Leonhart serving as a top DEA administrator? Her opinion about marijuana being as dangerous as other illegal drugs like heroin, crack, or meth hardly rises to the level of superstition let alone any kind of objective science.

This dumbass obviously has no idea what she is talking about. This is an infuriating display of complete idiocy and willful ignorance. Or else she’s just lying and stonewalling with the DEA party line, of course, but the “deer in the headlights” uncomprehending look on her face as she’s being grilled probably indicates that she’s being sincere. And stupid. Via The Raw Story:

During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”


If Leonhart REALLY doesn’t know the difference between pot and crack and their respective effects on the human body, as her answers would seem to indicate, may I suggest she actually TRY the drugs that she has no idea about and form a sensible opinion? Or maybe check in with some longtime pot smokers and some longtime crack heads or toothless meth addicts so she can see the difference? Or would that just be too easy? (31 years of daily pot smoking for me, I’ll meet with Leonhart happily and even subject myself to medical testing. I am a definitive study of one, trust me.)

Public opinion should force people like Leonhart out of their jobs where they have too much control over the lives of others. She was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama in 2010. She’s an embarrassment to both administrations. A buffoon. An ignoramous. There wasn’t a person in the room—even the Republicans—who was impressed by this woman’s astonishing lack of expertise (and therefore NOTABLE lack of qualifications for her position). How could anyone be impressed by her performance on Capital Hill? She should be fired immediately.

“Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?” It’s not a trick question! The answer is YES, for fuck’s sake. The average senior citizen has a more enlightened approach than this DEA clownjob. WHAT are this woman’s qualifications for her job, anyway? A pulse?

Bring the goddamn drug laws into the 21st century, PLEASE. This is just getting to be so fucking stupid.

Kudos to Rep Jared Polis of Colorado for so doggedly exposing this nonsense. We need more like him in Congress.

She is answering as someone who has been not coached as to, how to answer, but more so, "how not to answer." I can only assume some big Pharma company has it's hand in this. (Or some corporate entity)

I sense corruption in her blatant stupidity.

She said all schedule 1 drugs are addictive. Isn't LSD a schedule 1 drug? Not addictive in the least, as far as I know.

She's not stupid. She's bought. That makes her smart. Corrupt, and smart.

And if you're wondering who would pay millions to keep marijuana illegal, think private prisons. The more our teenagers' behaviour is criminalized, the more money private prisons make off taxpayers for their incarceration.

Haha, she says all schedule I drugs are addictive. That is actually not true. She is the head of the DEA and doesn't know facts about drugs.

EDIT: Oh shit, Messenger posted the same reply. Well I will add to Messenger's list of non-addictive Schedule I drugs: DMT. And I feel if someone became mentally addicted to DMT, they are probably very insane like any person who wakes up every morning to take a bunch of sugarcubes. That is just insane most people just naturally don't feel inclined to do so.

Politics is money. Keep pot illegal and you get to keep and increase you budget.

Anyone notice how coached she was to make sure she qualified "illegal drugs?"

To be fair, @Trancecoach, her job isn't science. It's enforcement.

*promote *controversy

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, June 21st, 2012 12:19pm PDT - promote requested by MrFisk.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

She's not stupid, she's protecting her job.

More like the DERP! Enforcement Agency.

These people just don't work for us. The system is broken, kick Obama out of office and write in a vote for Donald Trump! We'll destroy this country and reset it really fast!

>> ^MrFisk:

She's not stupid, she's protecting her job.

Smart people don't want that job.

AM WE the only ones think this bitch needs some hard ass-fucking treatment?

Does she know about YT? What ridiculous and embarrassing answers.

>> ^chingalera:

AM WE the only ones think this bitch needs some hard ass-fucking treatment?


you mean like modern day therapy? i'm pretty sure she could use some kind of drug to mellow her some, chill her out a little......what could that be?......hmmmm

now that i think about it, it does seem quite preposterous that those who've never tried the drug are often the ones passing judgement on it.

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

She knows how to stay on message, I'll give her that, too bad the message is utter crap.

>> ^messenger:

She said all schedule 1 drugs are addictive. Isn't LSD a schedule 1 drug? Not addictive in the least, as far as I know.


Try to find a list long term side effects of LSD based on scientific studies. Avoid 'drugs are bad' literature but find the results of actual scientific studies and you find some interesting results.

"you mean like modern day therapy? .."

Nope. Meant some ass-raping-Involuntary ass-raping. Wishing evil on this cretin.

Freakin' William Randolph Hearst.

At 4:10, she looks down to read off some bull$hit prepared lines in response to questions she doesn't know how to answer. Awesome.

>> ^messenger:

She said all schedule 1 drugs are addictive. Isn't LSD a schedule 1 drug? Not addictive in the least, as far as I know.


It's like the opposite of addictive, but it can fuck ya up good.

Yeah I hate to say it but I agree that it's not completely fair to her. You're asking an enforcement officer about science and to make an analysis/judgement of which drugs are worse/better. We pay them to enforce the law, not to understand the law.

It's congress that says these things are bad. It's really a question for congress and not the DEA.

That said, you would think that the top director of drug enforcement would have some idea of which ones are worse and which aren't

>> ^lucky760:

Freakin' William Randolph Hearst.


Don't forget Anslinger!

She's like a robot mindlessly towing the party line. I don't think she even believes anything.

Did Obama appoint that moron?
edit: yes he did. Yet another of his fuckups.

Another senator grills her:
http://videosift.com/video/Rep-Steve-Cohen-D-TN-Grills-Michele-Leonhart-About-Pot

The Congressman said there are three possible answers. Or she could even offer a fourth: "I'm in law enforcement, and while I am aware of information about the relative dangers of various drugs, it's not my place to comment on the relative harm these drugs do."

But she doesn't say that. She takes a scientific position, albeit a weak one, and one outside the scope of her position as a police officer, which is that all Schedule I drugs are "bad". She then goes on, still outside the scope of her position, to express her belief on the reasons marijuana was made a Schedule I drug. Then she agrees that Heroin is more addictive that marijuana. Then she claims that prescription drugs are "VERY addictive", indicating she's aware that there are varying levels of addictiveness among different substances.

Anyone offering the "She's just a cop" defence, you have to apply the same defence to everything she says, and it doesn't stick. She knows the facts when she's on her talking point, but doesn't even acknowledge that the facts exist when asked something against her talking point. Intellectually dishonest.>> ^VoodooV:

Yeah I hate to say it but I agree that it's not completely fair to her. You're asking an enforcement officer about science and to make an analysis/judgement of which drugs are worse/better. We pay them to enforce the law, not to understand the law.
It's congress that says these things are bad. It's really a question for congress and not the DEA.
That said, you would think that the top director of drug enforcement would have some idea of which ones are worse and which aren't

She's a symptom of the problem. If she was fired, another mouth-piece would get the job. But she's not going to be fired, because that would imply that she was wrong and <sarcasm tag>she's not wrong, drugs *are* bad m'kay</sarcasm tag>. It would have been nice if she'd at least given honest avoidance of the questions, like saying "my job is to enforce the law, not write it".

(@chingalera, wtf?)

Why do they even have these oversight Q&A type things, they only end up with the questioned making every effort to dodge the most basic of questions in an effort to avoid any oversight. EVERY one of these I have seen was a gigantic waste of time. Didn't a banking oversight thing end up in the congressman thanking the bankers for showing up and then leaving for some other "super important meeting"?

You know I tend to give government a lot of room to do there damn job, I don't complain much about some very obvious problems because I know no system is perfect. Cop arrests someone without obvious reason? Whatever, that person will not be held and will be back out in no time. TSA wants to grope me, cool enjoy my balls and let me go on my way. But these things more and more are showing me that there really is no oversight in, well, anything anymore.

I'm really starting to lose faith that the system is working. I'm sure we all knew it wasn't progressing, but at this point its like a car that won't even start, the wheels are just scenery...

im not saying she didn't screw up, just that we're asking the wrong people.

It's congress that made this stuff illegal in the first place. Instead of picking on the DEA, Congress should get off it's ass and..oh I don't know...be the leaders we elected them to be?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good discussion on this on MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

>> ^VoodooV:

im not saying she didn't screw up, just that we're asking the wrong people.
It's congress that made this stuff illegal in the first place. Instead of picking on the DEA, Congress should get off it's ass and..oh I don't know...be the leaders we elected them to be?

>> ^PalmliX:

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

QFT.

She's the head of the Drug ENFORCEMENT Agency, not the Drug Figure Out Which Drugs Are Worse Than Others Agency.

How about calling some medical researchers to testify instead of this line-towing bureaucrat.

They cut him off for expired time right as he reads to her the passage in a DEA publication claiming marijuana is wrong for anyone to use, even medicinally. She certainly claims, as other posters have pointed out, to know things outside the scope of her position, and is, in fact, making POLICY based on those erroneous assertions.

DEA = POLICY and ENFORCEMENT = NO FREEDOM .. yay!!!

19 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.