This is like a tiny drug thread. 
Rep. Blumenauer continued pressing Botticelli in the House Oversight Committee hearing, asking him whether marijuana is more dangerous and addictive than cocaine or methamphetamine, reports Travis Gettys at The Raw Story.
"I don't think that anyone would dispute the fact that there's relative toxicity related to those drugs," Botticelli said in a classical political non-answer. Understandably, Rep. Blumenauer -- who voted to make Oregon the first state to decriminalize marijuana, back in 1973, when he was a state representative in Salem -- wasn't satisfied.
He asked Botticelli, again, whether cannabis is more dangerous than the other two illegal drugs, both of which are officially Schedule II controlled substances, officially considered safer, by the United States federal government, than the drugs on Schedule I, including marijuana.
"I think the conversation minimizes the harm," an uncomfortable Botticelli replied.
"I'm not trying to minimize the harm," Rep. Blumenauer said. "I just want to know what's more dangerous and addictive. You don't know?"
"As a public health person, one of the things that we look at is not the relative risk of one drug against another," Botticelli claimed.
http://hemp.org/news/content/us-oregon-congressman-blasts-drug-official-marijuana-cluelessness
I am a firm believer in the idea that the inability to give a straight answer means that your argument is rancid shit and you should go reevaluate things.
Of course, these assholes (RWHN, Botticelli, etc) are PAID to tell huge fucking lies for the benefit of CCA and Wackenhutt, so they don't care if they're arguing shite. Much the same as the NYT now putting e-cig scare stories in their paper, because RJ Reynolds.
