REVELATION

I've been trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt but after I wasted the afternoon in a dismal exchange with him, I'm pretty much convinced Mark Kleiman is a irredeemable jerk.

He did deign to send me a personal email. I suppose he expects me to feel honored instead of appalled at his rudeness. Will post details this evening.

* * * * * * * *

SECOND COMING

Okay, so I knew it was a going to be a waste of time when I did it, but I just could not let Mark Kleiman's irritating screed on medical marijuana pass without comment. I mean he did ask.

He doesn't take comments on his main blog and he linked to what appears to be some new blog of his that does. I read it during lunch. As so often happens in his drug policy posts, I agreed with one sentence, no - make that one and two thirds.

In this struggle, the drug warriors have almost all of the advantages. Not only do they have the law and the agencies of government (including agencies that ought to be scientifically neutral, such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse) on their side, ....., along with such hegemonic control of the mass media that even their most dubious claims are usually recited by reporters as if they were facts.

I found the rest of the post to be prohibitionist dreck, so I commented. Like I said, there's a place at the end where it asks you to do it.

This is what I posted. Keep in mind that I composed this in fifteen minutes before I flew out the door and did not proof it, so I'm bracketing in the changes I would have made if I had.

As usual Prof Kleiman, you have it half right, unsurprising as your remarks are premised on half-truths.

It's indisputable that the prohibitionists have the advantage legally, financially and in their access to a complacent mass media that eagerly trumpet every flawed study as fact. However, their success which is pretty much limited to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders, is based on fear and not popular support among the electorate.

I also respectfully suggest, that you do a little more research before you make blanket pronouncements about the motives of the drug policy reform movement. Trotting out the same tired prohibitionist fallacy that medical marijuana and other harm reduction organizations are a merely a front for closet legalizers is not only a specious argument, it's absurd in light of the facts and implying that the movement does not support research into the medical benefits of cannabis is irresponsible. There are no less than three reform organizations in Massachusetts right now, still attempting to get the DEA to act on UMASS' application to conduct a serious study. The decision has been inexcusably withheld for years. It's the government that blocks the science; the activists welcome valid unbiased inquiry.

As for Sativex, it is hardly the panacea you hold it up to be. It's a chemical concoction designed to mimic cannabis, not an unadulterated medicinal herb. One needs look no further than the recently reported ill effects of prescribing Paxil to depressed teenagers, another medication rushed to market under FDA approval for the benefit of pharmaceutical company profits [to see the inherent danger in this 'breakthrough']. Further, since the ill effects of smoking marijuana can be obviated by vaporization, there appears no good reason to develop the product other than to give your drug warriors an acceptable political out and to further increase the already obscene profit margin of the pharmas.

Finally, look around you. Legalization is not a dirty word within the movement and many reformers embrace it as the only fiscally sane and socially responsible solution to drug abuse. My own Last One Speaks is proud to stand with organizations like Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Marijuana Policy Project and many others in demanding full legalization of all drugs and it's not because we want to use them ourselves. [A ridiculous argument. It is not difficult to get drugs]. The drug war has so miserably failed that access to drugs has never been easier and it would be much simpler for us to just shut up and get high [if that was true].

It's not about drugs; it's about personal sovereignty and the criminal waste of our tax dollars on inhumane and counter-productive policies. Call us reformers, call us anti-prohibitionists or call us legalizers, labels cannot diminish the validity of our arguments. But it would [be] more beneficial to join us in finding realistic answers to the age-old problem of drug abuse.

Now I'll admit that I've been more articulate and my words are usually kinder, but I hardly think I deserved this response from the eminent Mr. Kleiman.

I assume that the "respectfully" in your insulting and ignorant comment is meant ironically.

I guess that means he thinks he's smarter than me with all his academic pedigrees. This is what I replied.

Anything I say is meant to be taken in the most polite context possible. In light of your comments about the reform movement, the only irony I find is that you call my reply insulting.

Believe me if I had wanted to be insulting, I would have done a much better job of it.

Jeesh, Lighten up - you started it.

Still respectfully,

He didn't have an answer for that and neither could he refute my comments on his post. It's so typical of the BPAC methodology. When they can't fight with facts, they use insults and innuendo. Their prime imperative seems to be avoid the issue at all costs.

I'm not well credentialled academically but I feel secure in my intelligence. What rankles is being accused of being impolite. I thought I showed extraordinary restraint in the face of his discourteous remarks against the movement. He was sneering at everything I believe in. I really want to know how he can possibly justify what he's saying. Am I wrong to ask or is this just another (as the BPAC loves to call it) crushing of dissent?