I am always troubled when law enforcement organizations choose to enter the political arena. Yes, I understand that they have a right to do so, and I also understand the dynamics that make them desirable from the point of view of many candidates.
But when the AFL-CIO endorses a candidate, we all know that this is a labor organization standing behind a candidate in the belief that said candidate will pursue policies that match the declared interest of the endorsing group. And while steel workers might argue that they know a thing or two about buying American, or restaurant workers might make claims to represent the dining public in terms of tobacco prohibition in eating establishments, there is something entirely different about law enforcement labor and professional organizations lining up behind a candidate or an issue.
Law enforcement organizations attempt to leave the impression with voters that (a) they are dispassionately sharing professional knowledge about what will keep citizens safer; (b) that whatever the police want is good for American citizens by default; and (c) their organizations are not as self-interested as other labor unions and professional organizations.
So, in many ways, it is refreshing to find an organization like Minnesotans for Compassionate Care both lobbying for the legalization of medical marijuana, and will to provide a public, point-by-point refutation of ridiculous and inaccurate claims by law enforcement organizations.
Here's just the first of fourteen patently false claims about medical marijuana made by Minnesota law enforcement organizations and the factual refutations of such claims:
I suspect that most readers will already know the truth about these specious claims. It is important, however, to read these claims and their refutations with a particular eye toward examining the names and positions held by those law enforcement officials who are consciously willing to distort the truth to pursue their own self-interest and label it good public policy.
But when the AFL-CIO endorses a candidate, we all know that this is a labor organization standing behind a candidate in the belief that said candidate will pursue policies that match the declared interest of the endorsing group. And while steel workers might argue that they know a thing or two about buying American, or restaurant workers might make claims to represent the dining public in terms of tobacco prohibition in eating establishments, there is something entirely different about law enforcement labor and professional organizations lining up behind a candidate or an issue.
Law enforcement organizations attempt to leave the impression with voters that (a) they are dispassionately sharing professional knowledge about what will keep citizens safer; (b) that whatever the police want is good for American citizens by default; and (c) their organizations are not as self-interested as other labor unions and professional organizations.
So, in many ways, it is refreshing to find an organization like Minnesotans for Compassionate Care both lobbying for the legalization of medical marijuana, and will to provide a public, point-by-point refutation of ridiculous and inaccurate claims by law enforcement organizations.
Here's just the first of fourteen patently false claims about medical marijuana made by Minnesota law enforcement organizations and the factual refutations of such claims:
1. The law enforcement claim: Marijuana has no medical value.
In their own words:
• “The bottom line ... is that at this time there is no proven medicinal value in using
marijuana to treat illnesses or disease.” (James C. Backstrom, Dakota County
Attorney; Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee, 2/14/07)
• “This bill attempts to legitimize something based on no scientific evidence.” (Michael
Campion, Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety; Senate Judiciary Committee,
4/10/07)
• “There is no proof of marijuana’s medicinal value.” (Pete Janski, Chief of Police for
the city of St. Joseph; current president, Minnesota Police Chiefs Association; Senate
Judiciary, 4/10/07)
• “There is no proof of marijuana’s medicinal value, although there are some
comments to the contrary.” (Mitch Weinzetl, Chief of Police for the Buffalo Police
Department and President-Elect of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association; House
Public Safety and Civil Justice, 3/19/07)
The facts: There is a large and growing body of evidence supporting marijuana’s medical
benefit.
The proof: A 1997 review study found more than 70 studies published in peer-reviewed journals or by government agencies verifying that marijuana has medical value for patients suffering from pain, nausea, appetite loss, and other symptoms of illnesses such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS.1 Since then, many more studies have been published. That is why in February 2008, the American College of Physicians – the second largest physicians group in the country – called for marijuana to be reclassified under federal law to allow physician prescriptions, citing "marijuana's proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity."
I suspect that most readers will already know the truth about these specious claims. It is important, however, to read these claims and their refutations with a particular eye toward examining the names and positions held by those law enforcement officials who are consciously willing to distort the truth to pursue their own self-interest and label it good public policy.
Comments