Scientific Data/Political Agenda

Not too long ago, Obama said, “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

(Presented out of context, after being originally found here, an article which is worth a read)

But back to Obama. The above is, I hope we can all agree, an admirable sentiment.

As I blogged a few days ago Gil Kerlikowske, the US drug czar, has some strong views on the potential legalization of marijuana. Specifically, he views legalization as having no potential. No chance. Not going to happen.

Among the multitude of no doubt well thought out and carefully reasoned arguments that have lead to and maintain Kerlikowske's beliefs on marijuana legalization, is this little gem, "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit."

Dangerous? Yes. Sure. In as much as pretty much every drug or pretty much anything you could possibly do (including nothing) has potential dangers, yes marijuana is dangerous. Not as dangerous as, oh, I don't know, let's say... driving a car 2 km. But yeah, okay. Dangerous. I'm willing to accept that.

Has no medical benefit? No. Why not? Because that is an absolute. That is: marijuana has absolutely zero medical benefit. Which is not true. Not at all true. If he'd said little medical benefit or perhaps even redundant medical benefit then we could have talked. But no medical benefit? Untrue. Flat out untrue. And that, sir, is no good.

Especially under an administration which is ostensibly all "about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda".

Now I get it, Gil. You're the drug czar and it's your job to have a stick so far up your ass that it tickles your brain into making hardline statements about being tough on drugs, and just say no and etc., etc., yada, yadda, blah. That is in your job description. Central to it, in fact. It's not your fault. I'm sure working another job, with the stick removed, you'd be far more reasonable about these things.

But Mr. Obama? Where's the scientific data? Where are the scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology? Where's the change? Because all I'm seeing is more of the same.

Excellent campaigner. Just another President.

Please, sir. Prove me wrong.