Kevin Sabet Responds

Posted in:

Kevin Sabet has asked me to share his response to my two previous posts discussing his participation in the Beyond 2008 forum in Vancouver. I've exercised my editor's prerogative by inserting my reactions within his statement. Sabet's remarks can be read without interruption here.

Your posts have multiple half-truths and lies that beg major correction. First, while I did say that 80% of the Forum's participants agreed with each other that legalization/regulation was the way to go, I would hardly call this an "observation that the experts are lined up against him" since the so-called experts you referred to were composed almost entirely of the major activists of drug policy "reform." People from organizations like NORML, the ACLU, DPA, multiple cannabis consumers unions, drug user unions, etc. This was not at all a diverse and representative group of people composed of researchers, practitioners, or policy makers. These were well-known voices in the legalization movement, many of which I have debated and discussed drug policy with before.
 

Compare Sabet's argument with the actual list of delegates who participated in the event. Most attendees came from the fields of public health, HIV/AIDS, and substance abuse research. His claim that the group was "composed almost entirely of the major activists of drug policy 'reform'" is just false on its face as anyone can plainly see.

That is why this Forum was so one-sided and closed-minded. Multiple ad hominem attacks were hurled at me and other colleagues -- attacks deemed unreasonable and unfair by the moderators and hosts of the conference.
 

I'm told that only one participant was admonished by the moderators for "attacking" Kevin Sabet. This person suggested that Sabet and Kelly Corcoran of Drug Free America Foundation were "from another planet."

Rather than focusing on the questions at hand, the Forum served to prop-up people like Jack Cole (who gives new meaning to the term "media seeker") to get on a soap box and rant about legalization. This was unfortunate, because I was hoping for much more civil, less biased dialogue.
 

The purpose of the forum was to discuss how the UN treaties have been implemented in member countries, what their intended and unintended consequences have been, and to solicit recommendations on best practices and principles that should be adopted in future treaties. The opinion that these treaties have been an unmitigated disaster is a perfectly legitimate and relevant viewpoint, which the organizers expected many participants to express. Oddly, Sabet considers this to be "biased dialogue," while presumably believing his own contrary ideas to be unbiased.

Furthermore, I'm told that many of the most scathing indictments of the drug war that emerged in Vancouver came not from the usual suspects named by Sabet, but rather from the AIDS and public health sectors. It appears that whenever someone from outside drug policy reform expresses support for our ideas, Sabet automatically re-categorizes them as members of the "legalization movement." Maybe he's right, but this doesn’t refute my original point that the experts are flocking towards reform.

Also, please check The Province article. I NEVER "heckled" anyone, but rather, as the article reads:

"Cole's message at the conference drew criticism from Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former speechwriter for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is now with Project: Sundial (Supporting United Nations Drug Initiatives and Legislation)."
 

This is correct. The article from The Province claiming that Sabet "heckled" Jack Cole has been changed as Kevin says, and I've updated my prior post to reflect that. I'm told that Kevin didn't heckle anyone. To the contrary, I understand he conducted himself with civility and was active in seeking to establish rapport with others at the event. We should commend him for this and take note of how rare such behavior is among our most passionate opponents.


[Note: SUNDIAL is a volunteer effort that came about when NGOs from around the world approached me to form an umbrella group to keep them informed of UN policies and programs.]

Second, I NEVER asked anyone for 50% of the time at this Forum. That would have been unattainable and undesired. I spoke each time I wanted to, and I think the moderators did a pretty good job at making sure that everyone spoke. The entire subject of your second blog is completely wrong! Please correct it as such. That isn't to say that I thought the meeting was pretty one-sided.
 

My source stands firmly by the claim that Sabet requested 50% of the speaking time. Many people saw him pass a note to the moderators and wondered what it said. The moderators found it amusing and disclosed the contents of the note to a colleague of mine. I have great confidence in my source, but I'll allow for the possibility that the moderators misstated the contents of the note. If Sabet wishes to take further issue with this, he can begin by informing us what the note was about.

To be fair, the moderators also received complaints from reformers that Sabet was getting too much speaking time, so he wasn't the only one seeking a competitive advantage (if, in fact, he did so). The moderators ultimately concluded that they were doing a good job because they were criticized from both sides.


Other notable corrections are needed: this was NOT a UN-sponsored forum, even though people claimed this was true. This was a forum sponsored by the Vienna NGO Committee, in order to hopefully give guidance to the CND at the UN. Very different.
 

The UN asked the Vienna NGO Committee to organize these summits. Sabet's point is technically true, but irrelevant. The whole purpose was to provide feedback and policy recommendations to the UN.


I would like to point out that the tone in which I am referred to -- as a belligerent, ignorant, single-minded goof making money off of the "drug war" -- is offensive and distasteful. I worked hard to make sure we had two Forums -- one in Vancouver and one in Florida -- in order to get diverse points of view, even if I didn't agree with the Vancouver recommendations.
 

I haven't called Sabet any names or accused him of drug war profiteering. Beyond that, his claim that he worked to provide an open forum is dubious on several levels. Quite obviously, he was distressed by the viewpoints he heard in Vancouver, yet now claims that he sought them out purposefully.

Moreover, the Florida event he refers to excluded not only reformers, but AIDS organizations, public health groups, and many others. It was organized primarily by the Drug Free America Foundation, which held the event in St. Petersburg (its own backyard). As I understand it, the Vancouver forum happened only after countless NGOs complained about their exclusion from the initial event. If Sabet intends to claim that there was anything remotely inclusive or unbiased about the St. Petersburg forum, let's see if he can name a single reformer who was permitted to attend (many asked and were turned away).

The fact that he helped organize such a one-sided event really puts all of his complaints about Vancouver in perspective. In fact, the main reason more of his allies didn’t show up in Vancouver is because they'd already attended the St. Petersburg event that no reformers were allowed into! While Sabet tries to spin his role in organizing both events as evidence of his good will, the very fact that two events took place is a massive exhibit of the poor faith with which DFAF, and likely Sabet himself, approached this entire process from the very beginning.


I worked closely with Vancouver's organizers, and we discussed things in a civil spirit. I came back with contacts from many people whom I hope to open a dialogue with, including Deborah Small of Breaking The Chains, Daniel Wolfe of OSI, and others. To be barraged afterward on your blog is simply unclassy on your part, and it certainly does not serve your cause well. I strive everyday to find common ground with people I disagree with.

I continue to be amazed as to why I would be singled-out in your blog. I simply believe that drug use causes more harm than good, and I have seen the devastating effects of it on families and communities. While I agree that laws should also not cause more harm than good, I also believe that there are simple ways of changing certain aspects of a restrictive policy that does not resort to the pitfalls and uncertainties of full-scaled regulation/legalization. I think we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), and I've been unimpressed with places that have attempted to experiment with quasi-forms of legalization (Platzpitz, The Netherlands, etc.). These are simply my views and my opinions. Why should I be chastised for them?
 

I don't dispute the fact that Sabet's diplomacy far exceeds that of many of his colleagues. By all accounts, he's been genuinely friendly and professional in his interactions with drug policy reformers and I've heard that said of him repeatedly over a period of years. I also understand him to be an earnest spokesman for his beliefs, driven by his own observations and experiences.

Thus, it is not Kevin Sabet, but rather the body of thought he represents which I take issue with and will seek to dismantle at every opportunity. To the extent that my extended coverage of the Vancouver forum constitutes a "barrage" against him, I can only say that my comments on the matter remain online unedited and in my opinion fall short of being "offensive," "distasteful," or "unclassy."

The significance of all this, as I've maintained from the beginning, is that a diverse panel of professionals working to address the drug problem convened in Vancouver at the behest of the United Nations and concluded overwhelmingly that the drug war must end. Sabet's complaints provide a vivid illustration of this important point and that's the only reason his name has appeared in my blog with such frequency this week.

Yeah, that's right folks, drug policy reform has more than doubled in potency since the 1980's. This is not your parents' drug legalization movement.

Location: 
United States
Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

Kevin Sabin says

That he has seen the "devastating effects" of drug use on families and communities. I wonder, has he ever seen the aftermath of a police shooting? Ever been the target of a terrorist attack? Ever been woken up with a gun to his head? Ever had a loved one in prison for drugs? Has he ever been in jail, on probation or forced into treatment? Ever lost his job because of a felony drug conviction?

Has he ever seen a cop wave a gun in the face of a one-year-old child? Ever lived next door to a foster home where the young children of "drug offenders" are housed with older juvenile sex offenders? Does he have even a clue what kind of adults these children grow up to be? Does he care?

I doubt that Kevin Sabin has ever made any effort to learn about the effects of the so-called "war on drugs" on families and communities. He says that laws shouldn't do more harm than good -- I can point out immeasurable harm being done by drug laws. I dare him to point out even one good thing (other than keeping people like him employed).

Better yet...

I wonder if Kevin has ever been kidnapped and held against his will for months or years -- without due process -- like so many of us were in Straight, Inc. (DFAF's former name).

Back in the 80's, when I was in those painful restraint holds for hours, when I was being brutally humiliated... I never thought justice would ever be served. It's quite satisfying to see one of Sembler's cohorts squirming like this. Oh, how the tables have turned.

Look at it this way, Kevin: at least you weren't taken to a "time out" room and held in a five point restraint all day... just for speaking your mind. And at least you had the option of getting up and walking away.

It sucks to be outnumbered, huh? Better get used to it. You are in a rapidly shrinking minority.

Prohibition is just a perverse version of laissez faire.

Sabet: "I think we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), and I've been unimpressed with places that have attempted to experiment with quasi-forms of legalization (Platzpitz, The Netherlands, etc.). "

Prohibition is just a perverse version of laissez faire. You restrict everything therefore control nothing. We need a drug policy, not a bunch of "feel good" laws that give parents a false sense of security and therefore encourage complacency. Yes, we have a problem with legal drugs, but putting those drugs into the hands of criminals to sell to kids in schools is not the solution. I can't support any program that makes drugs more accessible to kids.

Prohibition = Black Market = Violence

"I think we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs..."

And that's a much less difficult time than we have with the war on drugs. If there's prohibition, there will be a black market. They go hand-in-hand inseparably. You cannot have one without the other.

It's easy to connect the dots. People don't get shot on the streets or get their doors smashed open over a bottle of whisky or a pack of smokes. Why should they get shot or busted for a little weed? Or any drug?

It's very telling that Sabet is "unimpressed" with the results of decriminilization and legalization elsewhere. Why would a steep reduction in property crime not impress him? Why would the elimination of shootings from deals gone bad not impress him? Because of his bias, perhaps? What, exactly, is Sabet not impressed with, the fact that it works?

The inescapable truth is that prohibition represents a total policy failure. It always was a policy failure and always will be a policy failure. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to the mafia in America. Certainly more than one "made man" thanked God for prohibition. How many drug dealers are thankful for the drug war? They all are because without it, the profits from selling drugs would disappear.

    Here are two salient facts for Mr Sabet to contemplate:
  • Any drug, prescription or otherwise, is available on the street any day for an elevated price; and
  • Everyone who has decided to use drugs is already using them or about to obtain them.

There is nothing that can be done about that, except to legalize and regulate in order to reduce harm to the lowest possible level. Spend the drug-war money on education and rehabilitation instead, where it will do some measurable good.

The war on drugs is a misguided boondoggle that does no good to society and instead does great harm. It must be ended just as alcohol prohibition had to be ended.

You are classy Scott

The entire "drug war" is "half truths and lies". You know you got them when they finally have to respond to a formerly invisible opponent. Watch the whole bunch of moralist miscreants worm their way into the dustbin of history as the real truths are exposed.

Abuse Prevention Lacking

People like Mr. Sabet believe that "drug use" and "drug abuse" are equal, even though they haven't come close to providing conclusive, irrefutable evidence (the kind that should be necessary when attacking freedom in the name of the civil part of civil liberty) proving that equation, relying instead on questionable studies at best.

For example, I've seen no one provide conclusive, irrefutable evidence proving an instance of marijuana use causes any harm at all (if you have such evidence, please provide it here in a reply).

Legalization acknowledges the separation of use and abuse, which is critical towards accurately targeting abusive behavior, the real 'enemy' in society.

Citing alcohol and tobacco abuse as a just basis for maintaining illegal status for other substances is flawed, considering there has never been an effective system of abuse prevention.

There is no highly visible:

1. effort to oppose abnormal stress (strong correlation with substance abuse, according to the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse)
2. educate everyone about the distinction between highly physically-addictive substances and otherwise
3. provide proper usage guidelines for substances that are not highly physically-addictive

We should be working hard now towards establishing a robust system of abuse prevention, and yet I've seen no such effort (again, if I'm missing something, please reply with guidance).

Because abnormal stress is truly disastrous to health regardless of substance abuse, a successful abuse prevention system would clearly go a long way towards creating a healthier society.

Effective abuse prevention is the freedom-embracing, health-supporting direction for society to travel.

Good post/comments today, and an invitation to Kevin Sabet

A simple question, Mr. Sabet. What's the point of having killer alcohol legal, and cannabis, far less dangerous to life and limb, illegal? If you or any of your colleagues and supporters are serious people, how about a serious answer? The Centers for Disease Control doesn't even keep records on cannabis related deaths, do they?

No see the DEA

The DEA keeps the records on how many people that have been shot because or related to mary jane.

Don't doubt it, they are sadistic murderers.

Humility is difficult

Mr. Sabet is in a state of mortification. Further debate would only expose the real truth of legalization. Therefore, expect no more.... for the moment.

Final Response by kevin Sabet

Kevin Sabet here. I don't have time to respond to every post, but I have a few things to say from some of the more off-the-mark claims made previously:

1) I certainly have considered the harms of restrictive drug policies -- my Ph.D. at Oxford exposed a whole range of them in its analysis of "total harm reduction" as a viable way to create and evaluate policies. It's in the public record for anyone to read.

2) We had a whole range of people in Florida -- people working on the front lines of prevention, treatment, and enforcement. People who work everyday within the bounds of the Conventions (which are quite flexible, actually) and people who had honest advice as to how to make things better. We knew that Vancouver would have a different group of people -- the delegate list you provide certainly shows that. How can it be honestly claimed that that list is a "diverse panel of professionals working to address the drug problem" ? I think we'll have to just agree to disagree.

3) That "note" passed to the moderators was actually NOT passed to the moderators but rather to Michel Perron, the chair of VNGOC and CCSA. The note contained in it a personal joke about something unrelated to the speakers list at the Forum or anything of the like. That wasn't to say that I was annoyed not to have more time or more people (only 4 out of 60) attending who didn't believe in full-blown legalization or a rewrite of the Conventions.

4) Once again, I decided to write Scott because I hope we can move beyond ad hominem attacks and petty shouting matches. It does not serve the reform movement well to further describe me as "in a state of mortification" or as trying to "make money" fighting drugs! That last point couldn't be further from the truth. Do you think I get a cent of the multi-billion dollar effort by ONDCP, etc to reduce drug use? Remember, George $oro$ chose your side.

5) It's been fun interacting here, and while I don't expect to further comment on things, thanks for taking the time to listen to me, and thanks especially to Scott for making a separate posting allowing me to share my views (albeit with editorial comment!).

I attended the Vancouver Forum knowing what I was getting into. I was hoping for an honest, civil dialogue about a whole range of pros and cons of current policies, but instead I walked into a slanted meeting which offered a platform for its participant's to prop themselves up in the (erroneous) name of a "UN-sponsored Forum" and speak about legalization. That is not why these fora were convened in the first place.

Cruise Missiles

For those of you who have not taken the time to read up on Kevin's positions, I would highly recommend it. His views are a bit unorthodox among his fellow prohibitionists. He is one of the few drug warriors I have seen who readily admit to some of the failures of the WoD.

However, his arguments focused on the ineffectiveness of current drug policies do not suggest a different approach. They merely recommend honing the weapons of war in a way that is analogous to using precision guided missiles instead of carpet bombing.

Sorry Kevin, but war is war. You'll never be able to reduce collateral damage enough to justify the use of violence against those who use substances to alter their minds. People's bodies do not belong to the State.

Unfortunately, freedom is inherently unsafe in many ways. Their are some people who are harmed as a result of drug use -- directly or indirectly. However, preemptive strikes against the vast majority of users who harm no one but themselves are simply inhumane, and only serve to restrict the liberties of responsible, otherwise law-abiding citizens.

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler." -- Eisenhower

The simple fact is

as Dr. Barnett Rubin told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Sept, of the $ 322-billion global black market economy CREATED by prohibition: "Our drug policy grants huge subsidies to our enemies."

Support for continuing the war on drugs is giving "aid and comfort" to America's sworn enemies. Treason Mr. Sabat. You are committing treason against the United States of America by supporting your civil war without end, the drug war policy, against your fellow Americans.

According to the New York City Police Department report, "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat" by Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt Senior Intelligence Analysts NYPD Intelligence Division, prisons are "A Radicalizing Cauldron".

"Prisons can play a critical role in both triggering and reinforcing the radicalization process. The prison’s isolated environment, ability to create a “captive audience” atmosphere, its absence of day-to-day distractions, and its large population of disaffected young men, makes it an excellent breeding ground for radicalization."

Consider that in context with the world record prison population of the United States thanks to your war on drugs. You are creating the conditions for a violent anarchic insurrection in America. Especially considering the fact that the high demand for illegal guns on American streets by drug gangsters effectively keeps those guns cheap and easy to get for all thugs and creeps. The war on drugs is a subsidy program for cheap and easy to get illegal hand-guns on American streets. YOU are promoting crime and anarchy on American streets. You are aiding America's enemies both foreign and domestic.

See my essay Seeds of Insurrection in America's Field of Dreams for more on these issues.

Finally, the largest group of elected local executives in America, the United States Conference of Mayors, the public officials who must mop up the blood in our streets and repair the damage done to their communities by you culture war, completely disagree with you.

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors believes the war on drugs has failed..."

Simply put the war on drugs is a paramilitary arm of the right-wing Jim Crow culture war in America. It is a civil war campaign against urban minorities and the poor by the white rural right-wing of America. Drug warriors are un-American and anti democracy authoritarians who have nothing but contempt for constitutional governance.

You are the problem not the solution.

As tempting as...

As tempting as it is to believe someone with Mr. Kevin Sabet's credentials let us not forget credentials caused every single problem in our country. President Clinton was inhaling your hot air while other feds were inhaling the very thing you spoke against Sabet. Didn’t seem to stop them from saving this country back then boy. Sad that at one time Uncle Sam took money from our pay checks to pay for you boy! Please go away boy or at the very least go blow bubbles, I hear he's back in town! I kid Sabet's he's really just a big crazy silly boy at heart ;-) Oh ya Sabet are you aware that the administrative law judges (federal) currently allow claimants to use marijuana if they have Doctors approval...must not be so bad if the Judges of SSA Office of Hearings and Appeals permit the use with a Doctor's slip... by the way Dr. Sabet why is this issue so important to you, were you in the military, were you a private government consultant are you now? Do you have relatives or know people that have had problems with using pot? Oh please we'd just love to hear from our expert boy! Oh don't be so serious i kid the good doctor.

another drug warrior stonewall

It ain't time you don't have to answer my question, Mr. Sabet, it's an even halfway reasonable reply. Once again: how come all you alcohol supremacists can use your killer drug but other good people can't use cannabis? It's a reasonable question, and it's necessary that your side answers it. C'mon now, take care of business, making people who haven't done anything to anybody into criminals is a serious matter.

Drug Warrior or Culture Warrior?

“I've been unimpressed with places that have attempted to experiment with quasi-forms of legalization (Platzpitz, The Netherlands, etc.). These are simply my views and my opinions. Why should I be chastised for them?”

So that’s it?  Dr. Sabet is unimpressed with what The Netherlands has accomplished in terms of drug regulation?  Or is he just not impressed with The Netherlands and its traditions of secularism, freedom and personal privacy?

What impresses Dr. Sabet?  Maybe he enjoys America’s nearly daily repeat of the drug war’s equivalent of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.  Perhaps he derives a perverse satisfaction with the drug war’s ability to make the United States the most punitive country in the world.  Or maybe he gets off on drug enforcement's proto-fascist tendency to erode civil liberties.  Others are not so easily impressed.

Dr. Sabet’s views and opinions have consequences.  As a civil servant or consultant thereto, he has been a willing instrument of the application of government and judicial force against peaceful citizens in a blind and futile effort to change or control the human conscience.  And now he expects not to be chastised for it?  I thought criticism came with the job.  Perhaps he dreams of somewhere over the rainbow where no one criticizes their government or its representatives.  He certainly won’t find such a place in America.

Giordano

Dr. Sabet

I will not demean your opinion. How should we react when many of us have seen the consequences of the ONDCP and the War on Drugs?

We all want to live in a truly free country, where we can live our style of life without fear of tribulation for actions taken within the privacy of our own homes. A truly free country where our children can be involved in extracurricular school activities without having to be drug tested without any vestige of probable cause. A truly free country where our children can receive financial aid to go to college in spite of a prior conviction for simple possession.

It is a noble cause to provide the facts about drugs but indeed another issue to make up lies and deceptive studies to marginalize people who use drugs in a responsible manner. Many of us know that the “War on Drugs” is truthfully a war on the citizens who use them.

Dr. Sabet, how should we react?

who's demeaning who?

While I don't often resort to name-calling to make my point, neither am I inclined to be polite to self-righteous hypocrites.

Users of illegal drugs are blamed for the violence of Mexican drug cartels, accused of suporting international terrorism and portrayed as thieves and child abusers. Meth users in particular are characterized as dishonest and violent and completely lacking respect for the law.

These accusations come from "public servants" who routinely lie under oath to obtain search warrants and tap our phones to determine the best time to "execute" them. They launch grenades into our homes and break our doors with battering rams; dressed in riot gear and ski masks they storm our bedrooms waving assault rifles in our faces and the faces of our children. They take what they want and destroy the rest and kill with impunity. And laugh while they do it.

Poor Mr. Sabet, did you guys be mean to him at the conference?

Kevin or any other drug

Kevin or any other drug warrior,

My brother died a couple of years ago from a Meth OD! According to you we need government instituted prohibition to protect the people from these evil drugs. How is it possible that my brother died from OD'ing on a drug that has been prohibited by the government? If prohibition works then wouldn't my brother be alive today (of course barring him not dying from something other than OD'ing on a prohibited substance)? My point is that obviously prohibition definitely does NOT work. If someone wants to do drugs they CAN get them anytime anywhere. I wish my brother would have been able to go for some kind of treatment....but in the climate of today's drug war mentality there is no way he would have gone! So thank you so much for your "help" (yes this is sarcasm)!!!

Logic and PHDs

I have to this day never fully comprehended the ability of the willfully ignorant to gleefully bask in the glow of their own self righteous dimness. It truly amazes me that an Oxford educated person can not, or will not, apply simple logic to this problem.

1. Is the drug war successful?

Answer: NO

Are there more people incarcerated today for drug offenses than there were when the fascists declared this war?

Now, if you want to argue that the criminal justice system has benefited greatly from this war than you have just argued in favor of my ad hominem attack .

2. Will the people of this nation ever wake up and realize that our beliefs and truths are trumped by money. Always... We will either cower like sheep (high probability) or a "Bastille" moment happens (not likely.)

I agree

All of it is failed. I think all we need are leaders, for every town and state. To stomp our way to washington DC and drag the criminals out, announce NESARA and get our country back from these lunatics that find some form of enjoyment out of killing innocent people!

Since 1933 we have been going against the constitution, to be apart of something bigger, something truth to right, we need to take back our country from these imposter fake-americans and reintroduce our real values!

Currently, The federal reserve exists and shouldn't, Our money is backed by NO VALUE, it is worthless (which it is stated in the constitution that it HAS to be backed, hmm), people die daily from chemical abuse that comes specifically from the government letting the chemicals kill hundreds of thousands a year, ciggerettes, alcohol, and the hard chemical drugs meth, cocaine, heroine, etc. They even go as far as to send off missions to their little KGB units to go and shoot up a target household, who cares if its the wrong house, shoot someone!

This HAS TO STOP, WE OWN THIS COUNTRY NOT THEM, WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHT TO LIVE FREE!

Oh yeah

Forgot to mention that the Income tax shouldn't exist either.

Can there be a new, kinda successful ,drug war?

NO..NO...NO... I've read his stuff. The ,Sabet ,new style of war, hits the stonewall of reason just as hard. I agree with all the "simple facts".

Escalating a failed policy

is nothing more than doing the same thing over and over all the while expecting different results.

"My Oxbridge degree gives me credability" - insecure Kevin Sabet

"I certainly have considered the harms of restrictive drug policies -- my Ph.D. at Oxford..."

I stopped reading here. If you have to brag about where you went to school, then it tells me a lot about your abilities and character, Kevin.

Sabet is alright

Don't attack the guy; he knows what he is talking about even if we don't all agree with him.

'final response' by Kevin Sabet

This isn't the first time on this site that a drug warrior showed he doesn't have any interest in debating his opponents and made a 'final response' before escaping the heat, some woman warrior did it a while ago. Come on, drug warriors, Scott will print anything you got. What you got?
-newageblues

"we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs"

Of course you do- alcohol and tobacco are major killers and maimers, and alcohol is the leading cause of degenerate behavior such as raping children and domestic violence. Come on Sabet, if you're a serious person you need to explain what it is about cannabis that you think puts it in the same league with killer alcohol, because on the surface, when it comes to raising havoc, it sure looks like it is child's play compared to alcohol.
The stonewalling game is up, sir, and the debate is on. Why is the killer drug legal and the non-killer drug criminal? I can't force you to do the right thing and reply to the question, but you should start practicing your answer because the question ain't going away. Too many good people's lives are being destroyed by wildly hypocritical alcohol supremacist bigotry. Given alcohol's central role in our culture, and its deadly ways, cannabis prohibition is a pile of crap. Let's see some of that 'liberty and justice for all' already.
-newageblues

RE to the desired topic

It’s great to know all these information. How did it felt to talk with the great Kevin Sabet and did that make any sense. I bet it did because in a topic like this he can’t go wrong. restart windows 8

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <object> <param> <embed> <b>

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Safe Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School