- DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy
Join us on Pete's couch.
Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to: Recent Comments
- Rebeccaopike on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “https://www.cornbreadhemp.com/pages/how-are-thc-gummies-legal sire behoove a go-to owing me, offering a within easy reach, tasty manner to charge out of CBD’s benefits.…” Nov 13, 13:44
- Williedurge on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “Worrisome same day cannabis delivery has been somewhat the journey. As someone fervent on spontaneous remedies, delving into the in…” Nov 11, 14:58
- Servetus on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “NIDA Director Dr Nora Volkow charts the future of addiction research: 7-Nov-2024″ — I was struck early on by how…” Nov 10, 09:50
- Son of Sam Walton on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “Sometimes, we shoot ourselves in the water bong. No pharmacy lets you smell your meds. But, you can ‘technically’ get…” Oct 28, 10:19
- Servetus on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “A 37-percent decrease in ODs from opioids combined with other drugs was achieved using drug treatments, drug education, and naloxone:…” Oct 21, 21:40
- Servetus on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “A BMC study in the country of Georgia showed no increase in marijuana use by people under 21 years of…” Oct 17, 19:35
- Murielnes on JD Vance is a marijuana prohibitionist: “After trying disparate brands, I can confidently articulate thc cbd gummies are top-notch. The taste is ambrosial and doesn’t entertain…” Oct 14, 13:04
- NorCalNative on JD Vance is a marijuana prohibitionist: “This study doesn’t surprise me. But here’s the thing: Synthetic THC as a single-molecule may help reduce agitation but it’s…” Oct 6, 13:24
Pages
- About
- Articles
- A Day at the Museum
- A story for Thanksgiving (Isidro and Teresa Aviles)
- Andrea Barthwell, caught red-handed
- Andrea Barthwell, Snake Oil Salesman
- Bong Hits 4 Jesus – Supreme Court Case
- DEA Bad Girl Michele Leonhart
- Deep Thoughts About the Drug War
- Drug War Victims
- Drug War Videos
- Drug WarRant Joins SOPA, PIPA Protest
- Hammer Down, Pop Up
- If I were Contrarian-King of the United States
- Increase in Burger Abuse Seen
- Irvin Rosenfeld and the Compassionate IND — Medical Marijuana Proof and Government Lies
- Karen Tandy and the DEA (Can Congress Get a Clue?)
- Len Bias – the death that ushered in two decades of destruction
- Mother and Son
- Patriot Act, Victory Act, Despot Act
- Petition for Correction under the ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines
- Raich v. Ashcroft
- Rand and American Enterprise Institute Studies – Indictments of Federal Drug Policy
- the Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie
- Treatment Statistics
- Who’s Who in Drug Prohibition
- Why is Marijuana Illegal?
Archives
Authors
-
Recent Posts
- Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III
- JD Vance is a marijuana prohibitionist
- Project 2025 dictates new and unproven drug policies
- Nora Volkow spotlights violent marijuana consumers
- Are DEA Administrative Law Judges Unconstitutional?
- John Walters and William Barr linked to Nazis
- CIA versus the DEA in Burma’s Narcotopia
- White House pardons simple marijuana use, possession
- DEA scammers plague the DEA
- Candace Owens attacks Native American drug use
Archives
Pages
- About
- Articles
- Why is Marijuana Illegal?
- Drug War Victims
- Petition for Correction under the ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines
- the Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie
- Deep Thoughts About the Drug War
- Treatment Statistics
- Drug War Videos
- Bong Hits 4 Jesus – Supreme Court Case
- Len Bias – the death that ushered in two decades of destruction
- Raich v. Ashcroft
- DEA Bad Girl Michele Leonhart
- Increase in Burger Abuse Seen
- If I were Contrarian-King of the United States
- Karen Tandy and the DEA (Can Congress Get a Clue?)
- Hammer Down, Pop Up
- Irvin Rosenfeld and the Compassionate IND — Medical Marijuana Proof and Government Lies
- Andrea Barthwell, caught red-handed
- Andrea Barthwell, Snake Oil Salesman
- A story for Thanksgiving (Isidro and Teresa Aviles)
- Who’s Who in Drug Prohibition
- A Day at the Museum
- Mother and Son
- Rand and American Enterprise Institute Studies – Indictments of Federal Drug Policy
- Patriot Act, Victory Act, Despot Act
- Drug WarRant Joins SOPA, PIPA Protest
This is what happens when you have a system to empower authorities instead of experts and policy makers instead of leaders. Only once they retire do you see the truth come out of people.
I only have one problem with the CATO org,,the Koch brothers run it,,,how are these guys,,the very essence of big industry opposed to hemp legalization,,planning on protecting their other industries that legal hemp production will impact?
clay, they don’t “run” Cato, they just donate to it. Do you run this site just because you donate to it? The Koch brothers fund a lot of libertarian orgs and causes. The libertarians are the ones who are fighting hardest to keep us all free, please don’t denigrate them or their donors.
Sorry Windy but one of the Koch brothers is CEO at CATO.
That is a little more than donating.
oops,,he is senior vice-prez,,,still more than a donor.
The fact that the Koch brothers have donated to this cause indicates their willingness to deal with such fallout. Judge them not on their reputation but on their actions; they have ponied up where others have not. Proof is in the pudding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NW-e7z7S6VI
Barney Frank got into a heated discussion with George Will over marijuana legalization on ABC’s ‘This Week with Christiane Amanpour’.
“If someone wants to smoke marijuana who’s an adult, why do you want to make them go to jail?” Frank asked.
“I need to know more about whether it’s a gateway drug to other drugs, I need to know how you’re going to regulate it” Will answered.
“Anything is a gateway to anything,” the congressman said, calling the conservative columnist’s remark “a slippery slope argument.”
“What you’re calling a cop out, I’m calling a quest for information,” Will said.
“How long is it going to last?” Frank shot back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/18/barney-frank-george-will_n_1156550.html
Here’s something that’s been bugging me, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen addressed. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that the “gateway theory” is true. (I know. I know. Bear with me.) I’ve never understood how it works as a rationale for maintaining cannabis prohibition. So the prohibs claim that cannabis is dangerous because it allegedly (through some mysterious, as-yet-unexplained mechanism) predisposes an individual to try “harder†illegal drugs that are actually in-and-of-themselves dangerous. Therefore, or so the argument goes, we should make cannabis illegal so that this dangerous “gateway†to [crack / heroin / meth / scary drug du jour] addiction is unavailable. But if making a drug illegal were all it took to make it “unavailable†then legal cannabis couldn’t act as a gateway to the presumably still illegal (and therefore “unavailableâ€) harder drugs. And of course, the empirical evidence that criminalizing cannabis has not succeeded at making this alleged gateway unavailable is overwhelming. Over 40 percent of Americans over the age of 12 acknowledge that they’ve tried cannabis… so what am I missing?
That George Will / Barney Frank clip is fascinating. I think it’s revealing to note how incredibly defensive George Will is. (Watch him shift in his seat when the question is put to him. Suddenly uncomfortable, George?) He’s asked whether he supports cannabis legalization and the first words out of his mouth are to note his support for Frank’s internet gambling bill?! It’s a non-sequitur that can only be understood as a bit of an apology. (“Awww, c’mon man. Don’t give me a hard time for being a narc. I want to legalize online gambling. That’s pretty good, right? I’m not a complete statist.”) And he can’t even bring himself to defend prohibition, instead using the cop-out that he needs more information. (And by the way George, you can call your cop-out a “ham and cheese on rye” if you like, but that doesn’t make it one.) Regardless of what you think of his politics, Will is a smart and articulate guy. But you wouldn’t know it from watching that clip. He cannot wait (and neither can Paul Ryan) for the subject to be changed. As Frank says, the issue “is a great embarrassment to the conservatives.” You’re damn right it is, and that embarrassment is very much on display in that clip.
It is (or it should be) just as much an embarrassment for the liberals/progressives, because they have as many prohibitionists on their team as the conservatives do, and two of those lelft side prohibitionists are in the WH, now (Joe Biden is one of the worst, it was his legislation that created the ONDCP and its mandate to lie about drugs) and the executive branch under Obama, specifically, is full of prohibitionists.
I agree 100%. But as someone who started out on the right before becoming a libertarian (what can I say, it’s how I was raised), I tend to be harder on “conservative” drug warriors because I think they should know better. And (to me, anyway) their hypocrisy is more glaring. The fact is that Republicans and self-described conservatives are less likely to support reform than Democrats and self-described liberals. I think it’s absurd that the party and ideology that styles itself as a champion of “limited government” and “individual liberty” (not to mention the 10th Amendment) is (generally) so bad on this issue.
@Francis
Re: Gateway theory
The explanation is simple but sad: prohibitionists are stupid. They lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the illogic of their own arguments.
.
.
Poor Harry J Anslinger is turning over in his grave. How could these people get the gateway theory so bass ackward? Everyone knows that heroin is the gateway to Merry Wanna!
“Why doesn’t the headline read: Latin American leaders fault U.S. Drug Policy? — “the authorities in consumer countries should explore all possible alternatives to eliminate exorbitant profits of criminals, including regulatory or market options.†So why the blatant dishonesty? “
Latin American leaders fault U.S. drug users
Here’s a thought. The Christian Right has pasted the word “morality” to a plant, as we all know. My question is , since a “plant” was the basis of the origin of sin (a tree), why aren’t apples prohibited? Look at the problem that ingesting the fruit of THAT plant caused mankind!
.
.
Probably because apples were some person’s artistic license in trying to represent the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There was no apple tree in Genesis.
I can make an excellent argument that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in fact cannabis.
While we’re at it, we could debate whether the Porridge consumed by Goldilocks was made from Millet or cannabis seed. Or what kind of bean it was Jack traded for, that later became the famous beanstalk. Fairy tales are fairy tales.
Duncan– To them, it WAS an apple tree. I’m just using THEIR metaphors.
Everyone knows how damaging to our political system it was to designate corporations as people but the other side of that coin could prove interesting.
If corporations are people,would not everyone in that corporation,stockholders included,be held responsible for any crimes the corporation commits?
.
.
Umm, if you’re trying to use that argument that the 1st Amendment applies only to people, that argument is an epic fail. Please re-read the 1st Amendment and tell me where it says anything about people only?
Why would we hold people who have nothing to do with a crime liable for the crime? I’d rather see equal enforcement of the laws. If a dispensary is convicted of violating cannabis prohibition they’re promptly put out of business. Why the heck are Purdue Pharmaceuticals and CVS Pharmacies still in business?
http://www.hcpro.com/LFS-74458-356/Purdue-Pharma-to-pay-634M-charged-with-felony-over-OxyContin.html
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/blackstone/woonsocket-cvs-meth-fine
Both could have been forced into liquidation for their actions. But your suggestion would have had retired school teachers convicted of criminal acts for nothing other than being vested in a retirement plan that owned shares of either corporation even if those shares are nothing more than part of a mindless index fund. I’m really not understanding the public benefit of such a policy.
Say, you might find the story of how Vioxx got FDA approval fascinating. Here’s a good starting point:
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/04/supreme-court-rules-vioxx-fraud-suit.php
Really old man, the existence of corporations serve a significant purpose. NORML, your public library, most if not all rural volunteer Fire Departments, and even soup kitchens are organized as corporations. Indicting the entire system of corporation formations because of the existence of criminals is just as silly as blaming people who enjoy cannabis for the existence of Mexican cartels. Criminals will take advantage of any structure created. I see your submission as suggesting that we throw away the baby with the bath water.
Why in the world would you want the Government to be able to tell NORML to shut up?
Because the baby is spoilt,,:<0
.. and chop off his gonads with a rusty razor!