Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
January 2010
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

Authors

Being productive

We have some amazing discussions in the comments section here and I tend to let them run without interfering too much. Lately, though, it has, on occasion, gotten a bit contentious among people of differing views who should be working together.

With the new year, it’s probably a good time for me to clarify once again the views of this site.

Drug WarRant believes in working toward the ultimate goal of the legalization of currently illicit drugs. That legalization could include different regulation regimes for different drugs. Legalization is defined as a state where “responsible adults may legally acquire, possess, and use a particular drug, although there may be restrictions on time, place and manner.”

Legalization of all drugs is important as a matter of individual liberty. It is also a matter of extreme importance to eliminate the horrendous worldwide damage caused by prohibition. Any “solution” that doesn’t dismantle the criminal prohibition regime and dramatically reduce the black market profits/corruption is incomplete.

In an ideal world, we would eliminate prohibition today, all at once. Some prefer to push for that approach. Others believe that it can only happen in steps — that legalization of marijuana (the largest of the illicit drugs) is a major step in dismantling the prohibition regime, making it easier to tackle the other drugs — or that legalizing medical marijuana will make it easier for the people to accept the idea of legalizing recreational marijuana.

We welcome all those looking for drug policy reform to this site. That includes those who may only be focused on one aspect of reform (such as medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, freeing up opioid pain management, harm reduction techniques, prison reform, oxycontin for fun, etc., etc.) The fact that they are focused on one area doesn’t mean that they are antagonistic to the bigger picture (nor are they hypocrites). As disagreements occur, educating others on our side as to why your approach to the big picture is important is fine — a great idea. However, spending lots of time calling allies names is unproductive.

Drug Policy Reform is a tiring business (I know — I’ve been writing this blog for over 6 years). It certainly feels like we should be able to go faster, and it’s frustrating to see the same lies and deceits in the media and our government officials. And yet, progress is being made, and it’s because of us. It’s because we’re doing a better job of educating the public as to the truth of drug policy issues than the government is doing with propagandizing them.

Drug policy reform can be a messy coalition. Conservatives have a set of good reasons to want reform, which may be different from the set of good reasons of liberal drug policy reformers. Hippies, corporatists, capitalists, environmentalists, Christians, atheists, ex-cons, ex-cops all have disagreements, yet can all have compelling reasons to support drug policy reform. If we want to build the critical mass that will force politicians to follow us, we need all those disparate views

So let’s make an effort to avoid calling our allies names. If you find yourself doing that too often, channel that into something productive. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper (or one of thousands across the country) — go to MAPinc for help in writing letters, or finding papers to write, or finding how you can volunteer as a newshawk. Or volunteer to help Law Enforcement Against Prohibition set up speaker engagements.

Thanks to all of you for your passion, your commitment, and your determination to end the destruction of prohibition.

Let’s work together toward another good year.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

34 comments to Being productive

  • Amen, hear here! hallelujah! and Cowabunga!

    We can mud wrestle later y’all, lets’ kick the bullies out of the sandbox first, ok?

  • Duncan

    Pete notices his herd of cats are all over the place, and waxes philosophical trying to get them back in the Kitty corral.

    Alright everyone….Group hug!

    Happy new year to all!

  • DdC

    New Year?
    It’s just another boring revolution.
    Seen one seen em all.
    Just another trip spinning around the sun.
    Like NASCAR goupies getting drunk,
    watching billboards turn left for 200 miles.

    ConPromising sheep stumbling on their own ego’s can’t let go of the status weird ways that fascism is still here. While red herrrings featured on GOPerverts blue plate specials. Drug worriers lumping it all in one basket like a 22 pistol is just a small bunker buster. Coincidence they sell fossil fools to the cancer victims they produce like soda pop. Just to sell more Pharmaceuticals. These are the prohibitionists and they ain’t leaving their profits on misery. Reformers can’t change whats not part of reality. Burying heads in the sand lighting both ends of the candles never works for long. Prohibition is a product sold by those saying it isn’t. The truth is the only salvation. Looks like another year of phony arbitration. Silly moneysluts waging their wars while the sheep graze in the pastures their told. Ganja sseels for $60 an eighth in buyers clubs, why would they want it legal? Why would I sell my soul to babykillers waging war just to smoke a doobie under the guise of legality? Or ever trust a white powder junkie. Or DEAth mongers caging sick and dying people. Fuck em all and the whores they rode in on. Maintaining Dysfunction for Profit and Power. Fuck USA! Qaeda!

    Czech Republic Decriminalizes All Major Drugs for Personal Use

    U.S Soldiers Are Waking Up!

    Sure sounds like fascism to me… USA! Qaeda

  • DdC

    New Year?
    It’s just another boring revolution.
    Seen one seen em all.
    Just another trip spinning around the sun.
    Like NASCAR groupies getting drunk,
    watching billboards turn left for 200 miles.

    ConPromising sheep stumbling on their own ego’s can’t let go of the status weird ways that fascism is still here. While red herrings featured on GOPerverts blue plate specials. Drug worriers lumping it all in one basket like a 22 pistol is just a small bunker buster. Coincidence they sell fossil fools to the cancer victims they produce like soda pop. Just to sell more Pharmaceuticals. These are the prohibitionists and they ain’t leaving their profits on misery. Reformers can’t change what’s not part of reality. Burying heads in the sand lighting both ends of the candles never works for long. Prohibition is a product sold by those saying it isn’t. The truth is the only salvation. Looks like another year of phony arbitration. Silly moneysluts waging their wars while the sheep graze in the pastures their told. Ganja sells for $60 an eighth in buyers clubs, why would they want it legal? Why would I sell my soul to babykillers waging war just to smoke a doobie under the guise of legality? Or ever trust a white powder junkie. Or DEAth mongers caging sick and dying people. Fuck em all and the whores they rode in on. Maintaining Dysfunction for Profit and Power. Fuck USA! Qaeda!

    Czech Republic Decriminalizes All Major Drugs for Personal Use

    U.S Soldiers Are Waking Up!

    Sure sounds like fascism to me… USA! Qaeda

  • Chris

    Yeah I was noticing this in recent threads. Everyone wants something different, but there is a common goal here. I’ve yet to see someone post a comment on here who isn’t a friend of drug policy reform… might as well work together.

  • Just me.

    I agree whole heartedly Pete. We all want the same thing for the most part.

    I seen some infighting on another reform site sometime ago. I seen on that site a hack had actually started them fighting and pointed it out.I couldnt help but to say a few words to make them all take stock. I was very happy to see they understood that we are supposed to work together.They realized our enemies want us to fight each other …not them.

    I will say now that if I have insulted anyone by my posts, I apologize. If so it wasnt intentional. I do my best to keep things non-personal.

    Ok with that said…as Duncan said..Group hug!

  • if not a hug at least a virtual round of bong hits!

  • BruceM

    Pete, with all due respect, I am as against ad hominem attacks and general “name calling” as anyone. But I don’t believe the word “hypocrite” is a bad thing to call someone whose actions do not comport with their words, or who otherwise act disingenuously.

    I realize in large part I’m one of the more vocal people to have labeled those who support the drug war and only want to make an exception for the one drug they want to use – marijuana – as “hypocrites.” I believe they are hypocrites. I don’t call them stupid, idiot, moron, asshole, assmunch, or anything of that sort. I am perfectly willing to discuss the merits of their views, but why is it wrong to call someone a hypocrite when their behavior clearly warrants it? None of us has any problem calling the Drug Czar or the DEA Chief a hypocrite when their words or behavior warrant it. Nor is it considered to be an immature, inappropriate ad hominem.

    People like Just Me are saying we all share the same thing and should all get along. My problem is that a lot of us do NOT share the same thing. Prohibition either exists or it does not. The people who see a material distinction between the criminalization of marijuana and the criminalization of other drugs do not share the same goal as us.

    There are plenty of websites for people who support marijuana legalization, medical marijuana, descheduling marijuana, decriminalizing, legalizing, deregulating, unregulating of marijuana. There are not many websites that are dedicated to totally ending prohibition of all drugs (marijuana included, of course).

    I appreciate and respect that you rarely interfere with the comments section. I also appreciate and respect that this is your website. If in the passion of debate I’ve used words stronger than “hypocrite” I apologize for it. Ad hominems – attacking the person rather than their argument – are not a proper means of debate. But calling someone a hypocrite addresses their argument (as inconsistent). Is it any different than saying “your argument is hypocrital” or “you’re being hypocritical”? I don’t see such a fine distinction.

    There is never a justification for hypocrisy. One of the worst, most horrendous and offensive aspects of drug prohibition is the innate hypocrisy of it all. Drug warrior bureaucrats gulping down vodka and tonics as they issue their press releases invoking “the children” and false statistics, lies, misinformation, and the like all to further their disingenuous agenda of maintaining power, money, and quite often racist policies.

    If we won’t tolerate hypocrisy from our government why should we tolerate hypcrisy from the commenters here? Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to the same standard?

    To be blunt, I think people like DdC (just to single out one of many) should find another website to post on, one of the millions dedicated solely to marijuana reform. People like DdC do not support cocaine legalization, heroin legalization, fentanyl legalization, carfentanil legalization, LSD legalization, crystal methamphetamine legalization, morphine legalization, oxycontin legaliation, etc. The debate here shouldn’t be about the merits/dangers of particular substances, it should be about the merits/dangers of drug prohibition as a whole.

    Drug prohibition is a destructive failure in every way possible, and I simply cannot – will not – abide people who support the status quo with the one exception of their own personal drug of choice. For the record, if someone out there had the position that only morphine should be legalized, I’d call them hypocrites too. I just don’t hear any such arguments.

    And yes, they are hypocrites. Their position is hypocritical. Their argument suffers from hypocrisy. It is also flatly inconsistent with the stated views of this site, as you so eloquently state them above.

    Anyway… happy new year to all.

    • DdC

      The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers’.
      Play by Shakespeare
      Henry VI – (Act IV, Scene II).

      US Narkofascists are terrorists…
      Lawyers profit on the drug war, lie for a living. The better liars make more profits. On the internet anyone can pretend to be anything they want. Those who would choose to be liars, show the smallness of their minds. Those who follow them are mindless. 40 years I’ve advocated against all vice being listed as crimes. Lawyers profit on vice being a crime. Then they plea bargain into mandatory rehabs and pisstaste corporations many “smarter” ones invest in. Just because Ganja and Hemp have direct value for the citizens without wall st or lawyers as an inexpensive homegrown resource, Just because it is in competition with the wallmart street moneysluts and fossil fools coal, opecker crud oil and frackin gas into people’s sinks. It’s a threat to the Lawyers and Kocheads. Like a living wage is a threat. Like health care for all and not just Koch for profit prisons flunky Lawyers like Brucy fill. A libretard advocating censorship for liberty? Only a shyster amubulance chaser could even contemplate that. Now junior you either serve the American people or you serve the International Banks, Neocons and various Complexes. Selling treatments for the symptoms, working for the disease… Isn’t it obvious?

      Relative to other painkillers available on the prescription market, like OxyContin and Vicodin, marijuana is a tame option for pain relief. Mankind has been safely ingesting marijuana, both for leisure and for healing, for thousands of years, dating back to ancient civilizations in Egypt and India. In fact, I could go down to Wal-Mart right now and pick half a dozen legal items off the shelf with more lethal potential than marijuana: cough syrup, aspirin or acetaminophen, to name just a handful. So why the hesitation to make marijuana a viable medical option for the thousands of patients who could potentially benefit from it?
      Michelle Lamont, Legalize It

      Strong corporate profits amid weak economy?
      Corporate profits grew 36.8 percent in 2010, the biggest gain since 1950, according to Friday’s latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. No sign could be more clear that U.S. companies see the so-called Great Recession in the rearview mirror.

      The Corporate Muzzle

      Money Spent on the War On Drugs this Year DrugSense

      The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.
      Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy

      State and local governments spent at least another 25 billion dollars.
      Source: Jeffrey A. Miron & Kathrine Waldock

      Arrests for drug law violations this year are expected to exceed the 1,663,582 arrests of 2009. Law enforcement made more arrests for drug abuse violations (an estimated 1.6 million arrests, or 13.0 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense in 2009. Someone is arrested for violating a drug law every 19 seconds.
      Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation

      Soros Monsanto Connection 12/19/10

      Strong corporate profits amid weak economy – What’s up with that?

      U.S. corporations continue to post strong profits quarter after quarter, even as the unemployment rate remains high and the U.S. economic recovery plods along in fits and starts.

      Corporate profits grew 36.8 percent in 2010, the biggest gain since 1950, according to Friday’s latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. No sign could be more clear that U.S. companies see the so-called Great Recession in the rearview mirror.

      The strong profits, however, mask the continued difficult terrain for businesses. Yes, profits are high, but that doesn’t mean business is strong. Read more:

      10 worst corporate income tax avoiders.

      1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

      2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

      3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

      4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

      5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

      6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

      7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

      8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

      9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

      10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

  • if not a hug at least a virtual round of bong hits! iSi, se puede!

  • Just me.

    I did say “We all want the same thing for the most part.”

    Not everyone does, thats ok. I just missing why its hypocritical for someone to be just for cannabis.
    Got four flat tires here and someone only wants to help by putting one on for me, thats one less I gota do.

  • SisterZombie

    Just me; But what if the guy who helps you put that first one on attempts to dissuade anybody from fixing the rest?

  • BruceM

    Just Me: the flat tire analogy doesn’t fly. Doing a little help while causing no harm is not the same as someone who wants to legalize pot but fully supports the drug war otherwise, as SisterZombie notes.

    People who just want to leglize one drug but keep the other 20,000 or so illegal (actually it’s an unlimited number due to the Analogue Act) do not want the same thing as us “for the most part.” They want .0000001% of the same thing. I look at them like Nazis who just want to make an exception for their one Jewish friend. “Just let this one Jew out of Auschwitz because I know him, have for my whole life, and he’s not a rat like all the other jews, he’s not even religious, come on, do it for me, he’s harmless, in fact he’s a doctor who has medicinal value to the German army. Let all the other jews rot and die, but just don’t kill this one jew who I really know well.”

    Just to be clear, I’m not calling such people Nazis. I hate to even invoke Nazis, it just seemed like an apt metaphor and it’s the first one that came to mind. Hypocrites yes. Nazis no.

    Another example are the people who think their family should be immune from the drug laws, but that always happens post hoc so it’s not an affirmative position but rather a reaction. But the “lock em up and throw away the key” people like Rush Limbaugh who feel those same rules should not apply to themselves or their families are just as hypocritical. They’re the worst type of hypocrite.

    We just need to take the time to point out that “ending prohibition” and “repealing the drug war” are not synonimous with “marijuana reform” but rather much broader, encompassing every drug. The pot heads are too stoned to recognize the difference. But if we say it to them really slowly and snap our fingers in their faces a few times, then they will realize they don’t agree with the principles of this website and they’ll leave for one of the million pro-pot marijuana reform websites out there where they’ll most certainly be welcomed.

    I’m certainly going to refrain from name calling but any time I read something that frames “prohibition” or “the drug war” in terms of marijuana or medicinal marijuana, I’m going to unhappily point it out. There’s just too much of it around here. And with that recent poll that shows 9 out of 10 people who support decriminalizing marijuana do not feel the same about other drugs, is it any surprise?

    Nothing makes me more angry than people who want legal exceptions made just for them or their company. There’s way too much of that going around in the US already, in fact it’s one of the leading causes of our imminent collapse. Buy a congressperson to pass a personal law for you. To bring that into the context of the drug war is intolerable.

  • Duncan

    Godwin’s law strikes again.

    I can make a reasoned argument that cannabis is wholly separate form the other drugs. Schedule 1 of the CSA could be an SAT question, which substance does not belong in the group.

    I fully support controlled distribution and safe access of the other drugs, but frankly am not going to lift a finger to help. Regardless, were I so inclined I’d favor an incremental approach, tackling cannabis first. Once the wall is broken down there perhaps there might be a change in attitude, but frankly the support for any legalization of other substances isn’t that much higher than for the legalization of real crimes. Upon seeing a significant reduction in cartel related violence and the minimization of drug war propaganda influenced headlines there might be some hope. But at this moment it’s just tilting at windmills to demand people support legalization of other drugs, and as such becomes an argument favoring form over substance.

    If you think me a hypocrite for my position so be it. I disagree, and being called such is meaningless to me.

  • Just me.

    Im glad my posts have bought up some discussion.

    I guess it does look as though those looking for just cannabis legalization are just leaning over the fence to get only what they want from it.

    I have to say I was on of those leaning over the fence until I did a lot of reading and realized just how much our freedoms have been stripped from us, Then I fell completely over the fence and will not go back.

    I welcome the help to for the “just cannabis” crowd to help get the ball rolling, just as long as they dont try stop the forward momentum afterward.I want the truth (concerning government lies on many subjects) to be fully exposed. This will hopefully be the road to recaliming this country from those who dont represent the people.

    I think once many of the “just cannabis” crowd realize what I and many other have on this point, they will join us .

    Maybe Im just not wanting to call them hypocrites because I was there once, awake but havent taken the blinders off yet.

    Sister Zombie:Just me; But what if the guy who helps you put that first one on attempts to dissuade anybody from fixing the rest?

    Yes, point taken. We wont get far will we. Dont make me use the tire iron in an unappropriate way now.

  • Just me.

    BruceMI’m certainly going to refrain from name calling but any time I read something that frames “prohibition” or “the drug war” in terms of marijuana or medicinal marijuana, I’m going to unhappily point it out. There’s just too much of it around here. And with that recent poll that shows 9 out of 10 people who support decriminalizing marijuana do not feel the same about other drugs, is it any surprise?

    I guess in this context, to me anyway, its like 9out of 10 are only for partial freedom, partial liberty, for that is what we are talking about here.

    Prohibition= freedom with their(government)exception.

    BruceM:Just to be clear, I’m not calling such people Nazis. I hate to even invoke Nazis

    No I wouldnt either as far as the “just cannabis” crowd goes. Those who support prohibition fully and enforce it fully with glee , I got no problem smearing them with that term.

  • BruceM

    Duncan: Godwin’s law is true for everything, so it’s not a profound statement, merely a universal truism. As the length of an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of someone calling another person a Nazi approaches 1. Okay, but the same is true for the probability of someone calling another person a zuccini, a Democrat, an inkjet printer, a lightbulb, or a 12 pack of beer. Anyway, I made it crystal clear that I was not calling anyone a Nazi. Moreover, in a discussion centered on drug prohibition, fascism will always be at the top of one’s mind. As such, is it so strange that the fist metaphor that comes to mind refers to the Nazis?

    Marijuana is not ridiculously out of place in Schedule I. There are plenty of drugs that were stuck there over the past decade because they were being sold on the internet, and stories about such substances sold newspapers. In order to “save the children” said harmless and quite often worthless substances had to be banned. Nobody ever died from them, nobody ever got hurt from them. Frankly I doubt anyone ever even got high from them (probably just placebo effect)… all those “designer” drugs (2DT this, 4CI that, etc.). The most I’m willing to agree with is that if an uneducated person is going to try a drug without any foreknowledge of how to use it properly or safely, then they’d be better off trying marijuana than most other C-I substances. But the fact that idiots who don’t know what they’re doing are less likely to hurt themselves with marijuana than with, say, cocaine is not a good argument for singling out marijuana as significantly different or special. But I do agree that based on the definition of a C-I drug, it would more appropriately be a C-III or C-IV.

    But since Article I, Section 1, of the US Constitution states* that the sole purpose of the federal government is to take any and all actions necessary to increase the DOW Jones Industrial Average and likewise to take any and all actions to prevent the decrease of the DOW Jones Industrial Average, allowing people to grow their own medicine is contrary to the most important purpose of the federal government, as drug comapanies would lose some money. It’s illegal to grow your own penicillin, too, but nobody seems to mind that. To allow people to grow their own medicine would be unconstitutional. To allow people to do anything that would cause a corporation to lose money would be unconstitutional.

    Maybe we just need to amend the Constitution to make it clear that status of the DOW is no business of the federal government, and regulating interstate and foreign commerce does not include encouraging, increasing, or otherwise fostering commerce (or hindering it). But people see it as the most important duty of the government to make the DOW go up. The DOW is always at the bottom of the screen when a government official is talking. We’ve been trained to correlate government action with the DOW. You literaly hear “Bad speech by Obama, the DOW went down 25 points during it.”

  • BruceM

    * gotta read between the lines. But trust me, I’m a lawyer.

  • Jon Doe

    Actually Godwin’s Law is this:

    “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

    Which is exactly what you did. You didn’t call anyone a Nazi (even went out of your way to state that you weren’t) but you did bring up a Nazi comparison. You fulfilled Godwin’s Law, get over it. We’ve all done it. All that “zucchini” name-calling business is just nonsense.

    But anyway, all that aside, can’t we all just agree that Prohibition, in all it’s forms, is just a really dumb idea?

  • permanentilt

    Mostly for Bruce:
    The problem with your argument is that you are doing exactly what the prohibitionists do, lumping marijuana in with heroin, meth, LSD, etc. Prohibitioners are always quick to turn a marijuana discussion into a DRUUUUUUGS discussion. While discussing the benefits of medical marijuana, they are quick to point out that their friend’s son died of a heroin overdose. If you take the bait, and move the discussion to prohibition as a whole, you will lose the debate, every time, even if you are 100% right.

    They are different substances, which must be dealt with differently and independently. Marijuana is the BIGGEST and MOST OBVIOUS hipocrisy involved in our drug laws. It is not .0000001% of the debate, more like 80% of the debate. (numbers obviously estimated)70% of drug cartel profits, 80% of illegal drug use, 99% of illegal drug use recommended by physicians, 50%ish supported by the people, 70% of the industrial hemp debate (because the govt. forces it to be). It is such obvious hipocrisy that you can see just by reading the qualifications for scheduling in the CSA how clearly wrong our laws on marijuana are.

    Another problem with your “marijuana only” argument is that you assume that most who support marijuana only reform are smokers. Polls indicate 50% of the nation believes in legalization, but only 10% smoke on a regular basis. Many who are coming out in opposition to marijuana laws do not smoke at all, so it cannot be that they merely want to smoke legally, it is that they realize the appaling hipocrisy and futility of the laws. As a smoker, I can tell you that I personally could care less about the laws against pot. I will smoke whether it is legal or not, if it were merely about ME being able to smoke legally, I would be content to leave the laws as they are (sadly because I am white, have a college education, a job, and no violent crime wrap sheet).

    BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT ME! It is about the millions of people who are impacted by marijuana prohibition, which is the VAST MAJORITY, and the EASIEST TO PROVE of the futile prohibitions.

    It is not about letting the 1 Jew out of auchwitz, it is letting 90% of the jews out of auchwitz and using that as proof that Auchwitz’s existence is immoral, impractical, and causes faaaaaaar more harm than it solves.

    Back to on topic:

    Personally, if you recognize the futility of marijuana laws, it is like a litmus test for me. You are clearly ready to think in the direction of logical reform. If you are able to turn your back on the government propoganda of marijuana, I believe you are helping on the road to end all prohibition. Effectively, no matter what you believe, if you realize the futility of marijuana laws, WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE.

    But I totally respect anyone who focuses on prohibition as a whole, we DEFINITELY need people to remind us of the end goal. Your opinions are welcome and necessary, you are truly fighting the good fight. Ofcourse I am for legalization of all substances, but CLEARLY marijuana is the #1 stop on the bus.

    Wow, sorry that was so long.

  • Just me.

    * gotta read between the lines. But trust me, I’m a lawyer.

    Whoa ! Sorry, but in my experience, the words trust and laywer dont belong in same sentence. Im not saying your a bad laywers but, you real should have thought about that statement.

  • Just me.

    Whoa ! Sorry, but in my experience, the words trust and laywer dont belong in same sentence. Im not saying your a bad laywers but, you real should have thought about that statement.

    Its just like saying to a straight ace, “trust me , Im a pothead!”

  • BruceM

    Jon Doe: I’ve heard Godwin’s Law phrases 100 different ways over the years. But whatever, as an oline discussion grows longer, the probability of anyone saying anything approaches 1. Like the probability of an infinite number of chimps typing for an infinite number of years, the probability of one of them typing out “War and Peace” word for word, approaches 1. So I don’t see Godwin’s Law as anything profound. I think it’s more profound to say an American politican can’t talk for more than 5 minutes without invoking “the children.” Actually makes a tangible prediction rather than saying “as an american politician talks, the probability that he’ll invoke “the children” gets larger and larger (i.e. approaches one).” Anyway…

    permanentlit: well first of all I’m not making any argument, so I’m not sure what “my argument” is. But I can tell from your name that you’re a pot person. Anyway, I’m saying the argument of other people is hypocritical. My argument, to the extent I’ve referred to one at all, is that drug prohibition should end immediately and should end for all drugs, not just one of them.

    They are different substances, which must be dealt with differently and independently. Marijuana is the BIGGEST and MOST OBVIOUS hipocrisy involved in our drug laws.

    I could not disagree more. That’s like saying beer is different from vodka and should be treated differently under alcohol prohibition. The point is that prohibition causes crime, causes government/police corruption, causes America to have the highest prison population of any country in the history of the planet, causes us to lose all our rights and all our values, causes us to waste trillions in taxpayer dollars, causes wars, causes violence and death in other countries (as we see in Mexico right now), causes us to be hated by other countries, funds terrorists and other criminals, causes the people who use drugs to be instant criminals who have to spend 100x the money for an inferior, adulterated, impure, unmeasured and thus unsafe product, and when something goes bad their friends are afraid to bring them to a hospital. Drug prohibition was started as a policy of racism and it perpetuates racism to this day. Our prisons are overcrowded, our police are corrupt, our government is on the verge of financial collapse.

    And you have the nerve to tell me that the drug YOU like, the drug YOU want to use, well gosh that drug is just “different” and different drugs should be treated different under the law? I say the biggest hypocrisy involved with our drug laws is the persecution of pain management doctors and chronic pain patients, resulting in the refusal of nearly all doctors to prescribe any painkillers. People go to the ER with a pitch fork stuck in their ass and the doctors give them tylenol because they’re too cowardly to so much as give them Vicodin. If we’re going to legalize anything based on importance and need, it should be opiates. The world’s healthiest drugs. Yes they may be addictive, but you can take them for 100 years with no ill physical effects aside from a little constipation. Being able to control your own pain, and rid yourself of pain when necessary is the most fundamental human right I can think of. Letting the government decide who and how pain is treated is unfathomable to me, a power no people would ever willingly give up rationally. I’m sure marijuana does have some valid medicinal properties, but none of them holds a candle to the ability to rid the worst physical pain. So I say opiates are “different”. But even so, I’d never actually argue that we should legalize opiates and not everything else at the same time.

    BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT ME! It is about the millions of people who are impacted by marijuana prohibition, which is the VAST MAJORITY, and the EASIEST TO PROVE of the futile prohibitions.

    All drug prohibition is equally futile. Because marijuana is the most popularly used drug doesn’t justify the continued prohibition of all the others. And “impact” by marijuana prohibition is usually a slap on the wrist, while “impact” by cocaine, heroin, amphetamine prohibition is usually far more serious. So I say it evens out. Take all the years being served by people in prison, and i’ll bet the non-marijuana years far exceed the marijuana years, that is, a person serving 15 years for cocaine counts fifteen times as much as a person serving 1 year for marijauana.

    I’ve said I don’t mind by starting out with decriminalizing marijuana to show everyone the sky won’t fall with drugs being legal. But if you’re going to start out by saying it’s different from the other drugs, you’ve already declared yourself as being against any sort of incremental approach to total decriminalization. And quite frankly, once you’re at home being able to legally and cheaply acquire your drug of choice (and for you I have no doubt that pot is just that), you and the people like you will be long gone when the rest of us are trying to get everything else decriminalized. You’ll be arguing against us, even if just by having your quotes and positions regurgitated by others (the “marijuana is different” notion).

  • BruceM

    Insofar as one has the goal of growing plants for textile use, looking for good places to grow flax and hemp is pretty obvious advice. Because religious leaders are insane by definition I find their quotes anti-authoritative. For every sensical quote (none of which is ever truly profound) there are 100 insane, cruel, irrational ones. Anyone like Brigham Young, who believed Jesus hung out with the Indians in pre-colonial America is per se untrustworthy.

    If I told you I believe George Washington was really a large goldfish who breathed on land by wearing a water tank on his back and spoke via telepathy, you would discount everything I said, and rightfully so. Replacing Washington with Jesus and calling it “my religion” shouldn’t change that one bit.

  • Cliff

    My take on the whole War on Certain Drugs is based on historical human use of mind / mood altering drugs and the waste of resources and lives to control said use. A few humans need to wake up to the cold reality, some humans choose to use drugs to feel better and the universe couldn’t care less.

    We are all sinners and imperfect and have our short comings, but we all need to cut each other some slack because there is enough pain in this life to go around, if you have to use something to help you cope or get by, then God bless you. If you have a reason to party and let your hair down and responsibly use an intoxicant of your choice, then God bless you too. No one should be locked up for playing a part, whether seller or buyer be.

  • Just me.

    BruceM:I could not disagree more. That’s like saying beer is different from vodka and should be treated differently under alcohol prohibition. The point is that prohibition causes crime, causes government/police corruption, causes America to have the highest prison population of any country in the history of the planet, causes us to lose all our rights and all our values, causes us to waste trillions in taxpayer dollars, causes wars, causes violence and death in other countries (as we see in Mexico right now), causes us to be hated by other countries, funds terrorists and other criminals, causes the people who use drugs to be instant criminals who have to spend 100x the money for an inferior, adulterated, impure, unmeasured and thus unsafe product, and when something goes bad their friends are afraid to bring them to a hospital. Drug prohibition was started as a policy of racism and it perpetuates racism to this day. Our prisons are overcrowded, our police are corrupt, our government is on the verge of financial collapse.

    See now , this is what is so screwed up! ALL the things you listed there Bruce, Please someone tell me, All the carnage and our leaders refuse to change this law. Its just criminal to allow this to happen to America.

    We have had our rights stripped for the supposed purpose of fighting terrorists, to keep us safe. Our lives are and maynever be the same. Now suppose for one minute that if our leaders didint do something to keep terrorists from destroying our country. The outrage would be MASSIVE !!

    Back to your list Bruce. All that caranage is just as bad. Wheres the outrage? Why do our leaders think its “ok” to let this continue? How insane are these people whom we supposedly trust to lead this country. ITS CRIMINAL TO LET THIS CONTINUE ! THIS IS NOT PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY OR HELPING THE KIDS!

  • Voletear

    Consider a hypothetical future of cannabis legalization for any use. It’s probably safe to say that the cartels would attempt to make up the difference with the other drugs. Just imagine the mileage the Prohibition Zealots would get out of that wrinkle. We’d be fighting re-prohibitionists. We would, however, be even more disjointed than we are now.

    Perhaps some of the cannabis-centric readers would tell us what they would do about drugs of addiction and the poly-drugs? Under your benevolent dictatorship how would we deal with these drugs?

  • DavesNotHere

    I try to save my name-calling for politicians like Joe “Lock up Chong and his bong” Biden. If I call any drug reformers here a name, it truly reflects more on me being a jerk than them being whatever name I call them. Disagreeing isn’t a bad thing, but it usually can be done in a less hostile manner than I often choose.

    Stick to the truth and your hardly ever wrong.

  • Quoting permanentilt: “Mostly for Bruce:
    The problem with your argument is that you are doing exactly what the prohibitionists do, lumping marijuana in with heroin, meth, LSD, etc. Prohibitioners are always quick to turn a marijuana discussion into a DRUUUUUUGS discussion. While discussing the benefits of medical marijuana, they are quick to point out that their friend’s son died of a heroin overdose. If you take the bait, and move the discussion to prohibition as a whole, you will lose the debate, every time, even if you are 100% right.”

    Prohibitionists will always turn things into a “drugs discussion”. War on Drugs, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, yada yada …

    I recognize, however, the vulnerability you mention here. I will maintain that it’s a particular vulnerability that the cannabis reform advocates’ arguments are open to, because they simply do not seem to have a very coherent theory going for them (see below).

    A. Prohibitionists have always screamed “drugs are dangerous, hence should be made illegal”. As such they seem to indicate that “if only a drug WASN’T dangerous it would be legal”.

    B. Way too many cannabis reformers have swallowed that bait hook line and sinker, so they have incessantly tried to REDUCE the question of Cannabis’s legal status to a question of drug safety. I’m as pissed as the next guy regarding the hypocrisy of Prohibitionists here. Nothing is more hypocritical than with cannabis. Yet *I* think the framing is entirely wrong. Whether some Nanny State “prohibits something because it’s dangerous”, or “allows it because it’s safe” rests on the same wrong premise that State has any business interfering like that and that dangers have anything to do with making good policy. It’s a red heering, a shallow grave for us to waste away in.

    C. The dear cannabis plant just so happens to actually, truly be the safest psychoactive substances known to man. But let’s face it: SOME drug would have to hold this position. That it happens to be cannabis is just coincidence, but cannabis is still a drug just like alcohol is. However, it’s my contention that cannabis activists place far too much importance of this crandom throw of the dice. Tenable? I don’t think so. Next year some guys finds two plants and three new synthetic drugs that are proven scientifically to be safer than pot. Should we then Legalize the Five, and move to a ban on pot and alcohol? Oops, huh?

    Prohibitionists have drawn a chalk outline on the pavement. They’re just waiting for someone i cannabis reform to lie down willingly inside the chalk outline and play his part.

    So while Prohibitionists and Pot Legalizers are playing their symbiotic game the latter, which is the largest and most powerful group of drug reformers, seem unable to work out a coherent “theory of dealing effectively with risky behavior (drugs)”. They just want to move pot into the same grouping as alcohol and have Prohibition continue unabated – or with increased fury – for the rest of us.

    That’s making EVERYTHING much harder for those of us who do not believe in the very similar lies told about other drugs like LSD, MDMA, psilocybin, 2C-B, methylone, and well … even meth. Did I mention I know people who use meth occasionally and are leading good, productive lives?

    What? Government can’t lie about other drugs too?

    It’s so very hard to watch the struggle of our brethren knowing that while they most certainly will achieve success, they’re not just “not lifting a finger to help us” (which would be OK), but their approach WILL cause even more years by me and my friends to waste away in drug policy reform when we try to correct the faulty theory of cannabis legalization (which is not OK).

    Hence my frequent remark that if this was about racism, we’d have one group just wanting to have one, naturally growing, totally nice race be exempt from Apartheid racism while not giving a flying frak about any other race. (No, I’m not saying that. I’m pointing out the apparent lack of theory on the subject of drugs behind the struggle to rehabilitate cannabis.)

    BTW, I absolutely adore cannabis in all it’s forms. Who’d have known.

  • permanentilt

    Bruce, I don’t know what a “pot person” is but I assure you I am not one. Sounds like some stereotype that prohibitionists throw out to dissuade any discussion at all. My name? My name could indicate that I’m a a poker person or a pinball person, I don’t know what “permanentilt” could possibly have to do with marijuana.

    “That’s like saying beer is different from vodka and should be treated differently under alcohol prohibition.”

    No, I didn’t say kind bud is different from schwagg what I said was more like Alcohol and Cigarettes are different substances, which clearly they are, and must be dealt with independently.

    “But if you’re going to start out by saying it’s different from the other drugs,”

    No, I said ALL substances are different, not that marijuana is the one exception. The fact that law enforcement treats all drugs the same, save in ridiculous “schedules” is murderously stupid. The CSA must be repealed and drugs must cease to be a law enforcement issue. But people aren’t asking questions about the CSA these days, the debate is centering on marijuana specifically.

    My point was that the public discussion now centers on marijuana, so instead of ridiculing the newly informed calling them “hypocrites”, “pot people”, and throwing out inflammatory remarks, just explain your position coherently and accept that they are on your side but might need more info. Name-calling achieves nothing and is counterproductive.

    Jesper: Good points. Clearly the right of a person to determine what is “safe” for himself trumps any arguments about what is “safe for society”. People’s misinformation runs so deep, it is difficult to get all the points in. When someone says, for instance, “but Marijuana is dangerous!” I DO tend to reply with “No it isn’t….” rather than the more important “Why would that even matter?….” I’ll definitely keep that in mind.

  • Just me.

    Permenatilt To Jesper: Good points. Clearly the right of a person to determine what is “safe” for himself trumps any arguments about what is “safe for society”. People’s misinformation runs so deep, it is difficult to get all the points in. When someone says, for instance, “but Marijuana is dangerous!” I DO tend to reply with “No it isn’t….” rather than the more important “Why would that even matter?….” I’ll definitely keep that in mind.

    Agree, were I defined what is ‘not safe’ for me. Prohibition is not safe for me because, the laws imposed to enforce it not only effect those who use drugs but those who dont(myself). Therefore I deem prohibition not safe for me, society will have to make a determination on that in that respect eventually, for its self.

    I look at prohibition like spraying bugs. Just because mesquitoes carry a desease, do we spray a chemical over all of us that causes health problems worse that the bugs carries? Just to kill the bug? Well we have, DDT. We dont anymore right?

    Hopefully the pubic will see this oneday too.

    _________________________________________________________

    A vote for cannabis legalization only is a vote for partial freedom only.

  • BruceM

    Jesper: well said. I agree completely. We all know “safety” and “danger” have nothing to do with it. Plus statistics about deaths and injuries are irrelevant to prohibitionists – the “danger” is in the psyoactive ability of the drug to be an intoxicant. Like alcohol, but since the prohibitionists are all alcoholics, they sound just like the pot users in trying to come up with lame, implausible, hypocritical reasons why their favorite drug is different.

    Pot might make you giggle at a song lyric while you’re sitting in someone’s car as a passenger, and your giggle might distract them and cause them to look away from the road just long enought to prevent taking an evasive maneuver to avoid getting hit by a drunk driver. So, the drunk driver hits the car with the sober driver because the sober driver’s passenger had smoked pot a few hours before. That’s a “marijuana related accident” and that is why pot should never be legal, so sayeth the prohibitionist as they suck down their 3rd martini of the morning.

  • Ripmeupacuppa

    Thanks Wendy, for reminding me why I’m fighting this fucking monster called prohibition!

    My heart goes out to you and your kids!

  • Being productive Drug WarRant I’m relatively new to blogging but liked the article it’s very interesting.