Gingrich and Frank

It’s been discussed a bit in comments, but it’s important to note once again just how horrible Newt would be.

Chris Moody Interview with Newt

Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?

I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.

I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.

Why shouldn’t the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?

Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.

I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.

Expand on what you mean by “aggressive.”

In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.

In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?

I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they’ve done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’ If you’re serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we’re going to have drugs in this country.

Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They’ve been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.

In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?

What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

It’s a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.

Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.

You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It’s not mine, but it’s internally logical.

Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We’ve spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we’ve spent? How can we reform our approach?

I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.

Sometime in the next year we’ll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we’re very serious about it.

I’d be happy to purchase a one-way ticket to Singapore for Newt Gingrich.

Representative Barney Frank isn’t too worried about Gingrich’s candidacy, and got in a pretty good jab:

“I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee,” the 30-year House veteran said. “He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater … It’s still unlikely, but I have hopes.”

Unfortunately, Frank, who has been a real friend to drug policy reform, has announced that he is retiring from the House this year.

He’ll be missed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Gingrich and Frank

  1. claygooding says:

    yes,he will be missed,,we can only hope his replacement has similar goals.

    Newt couldn’t win a donut at a cop convention.

  2. claygooding says:

    The drug czar had to have some candidate to throw smoke into the arena,,it was getting too real at the last debate when Ron Paul started talking about the drug war being a failure and the crowd cheered,,,you know that had to be like ice water down Kerli’s back.

    He is following Kerli’s plan to the letter,,stop putting users in prison and start making them pay through the nose. Probation fees and drug treatment costs could run into billions for the drug treatment centers and probation fees.

    Kerli announced his intentions when he declared that he was ending the war on drugs right after he took office,,he said they were going to change from imprisonment to a drug treatment approach,,except the economy tanked and no investors opened up the necessary treatment centers all over the US to make the change,,,nowwww,,with half the country wanting to legalize,,investors are scared to spend the money if they are going to lose the court ordered pot addicts.

  3. the annual ondcp drug control strategy was the first shot across the bow, and the second is on the way:

    “Sometime in the next year we’ll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we’re very serious about it.”

    drug testing of everyone at every opportunity is on the way. harping about the imbalance in funding and calls for more of the funding go to demand side activities have succeeded: now our success is going to bite us on the ass.

    interestingly enough, the zealots seem convinced that they have it in the bag and are now basically phoning it in. the latest example is kerli’s spew in response to the medical marijuana petition on we the people: look ma, no numbers!

    and they gave the same exact response to all of the various “legalize pot” petitions — no direct response to the nuances of any specific petition. just boilerplate bullshit whittled down to the essentials: fuck you, bad things, fear for the children, piss in this cup.

    [btw, if a 20 year old has a “not fully developed” brain, then why in the hell do we let teenagers drive cars?]

    the train is coming and the light is on: “operation piss our way out” begins next year. look out everybody — they’re serious.

    • claygooding says:

      All that may be true,,but the end results will be the same,and the poor will continue filling the prisons because they can’t afford to pay rehab and probation fees.

      They are going to have to build more prisons and the treatment centers are still not built. There is no money for them to enact any large scale policy change,,maybe there is plenty of federal money for Kerli and his thugs to raid a way,but states are already wanting out of the drug war due to budget woes.

      Building more prisons is not an option Ca or any of the economically stressed states can even think about.

      • unless, of course, they figure out how to both keep the drugs illegal and make money at it at the same time.

        i believe that is *exactly* what they are getting giddy about — and they’ll be telling the rest of us all about the plan around the end of february.

    • kaptinemo says:

      ‘Serious’ about spending more money (borrowed from China) on proven failures when it’s needed for social safety net programs, at a time where more of the previously Middle Class that need that money to survive is getting angrily, politically active…and are more inclined than ever to want that money spent for anything but piss-testing.

      The man’s timing couldn’t be more off.

      Crazy Uncle Newt, the sort who yells irrelevancies at walls, needs to be institutionalized. If I were a GOP front-runner, I’d be staying very far away from him.

      • he’s just a messenger kap’n. and while he is certainly daft (and fundamentally un-electable), the people pulling the strings aren’t stupid in the least.

        always remember the first two commandments of prohibitionism: “no, never, zero” and “whatever it takes.”

        also, the middle-class do not matter to the puppet masters and will not rise against the machine — we have a loooooooong way to go before an American spring would be in the making. drug law reformers matter even less — both to the masters and to the general public, who are too distracted by the direct impacts of our current economic woes.

        they are doing everything they can to keep their game going — so the song remains the same: we know what they’re doing, so what plan do our glorious “leaders” have to counter it?

  4. Francis says:

    “I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.”

    Yeah, I mean, we wouldn’t want heroin to get confused.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Keep it up Francis, you’re cruisin’ for a bruisin’.

      If you keep stealing my lines people are going to start thinking that you’re just me in drag 😉

      • francis = guy

        frances = girl

      • Duncan20903 says:

        WTF are you people talking about? Where the heck do you get the notion that there were any reference to Francis’ gender in my post?

        To me, Francis = Grandpa and Frances = Mom. I knew the gender distinction for the two name variations before I started kindergarten.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          Oh I get it, you’ve mistakenly presumed that drag necessarily means feminine attire. But even presuming that it would be me who would be the woman, if Francis needed to dress in clothing designed primarily females in order to make people think he is me.

          Is there a feminine for Duncan? Duncanette? That sounds like a backup singer. Well my sister’s middle name is Duncan so maybe it’s like Leslie and goes both ways.

          Why is it that white people can’t think up any original names? Everybody has to be named after somebody else. We should all just change our names to Bruce and quit worrying about. Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, no doubt.

        • mistakenly presumed that drag necessarily means feminine attire”

          you = guy

          “guy in drag” = guy in women’s clothes

          thus “me in drag (where “me” = you & you = “guy”)” is difficult to interpret in any other way.

          and rene descartes was a drunken fart, i drink therefore i am!

  5. Francis says:

    ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’

    Er… I’m pretty sure it’s the drug warriors and not the drugs that are “depriving people of their full citizenship,” you know by locking them in cages, disenfranchising them, trampling on their 4th Amendment rights, etc. You might even say that the drug warriors’ actions are “antithetical to being an American.”

  6. ezrydn says:

    That low rumble you felt was Ol’ Tom Jeff rolling over in his grave. I think I’ve about heard it all. Homeland labels me as a “potential terrorist” because I did my duty in Vietnam and now Newt says I don’t have full citizenship because use a medicine he doesn’t approve of. And this man wants my vote? No friggin’ way! Someone please let the women out of the locked room. I wanna hear about Newt’s escapades.

  7. Mike R says:

    This man served his wife divorce papers while she was on a chemo drip. He has absolutely no conscience whatsoever.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Refused to let her have effective anti-nausea medication too. Maybe it’s his fond memories of seeing her suffer that keeps him against letting doctors make medical decisions.

    • despicableG says:

      “She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.” — L.H. Carter, his campaign treasurer

      Nice Guy!

  8. james shields says:


    Newt, not gecko, was there, yeah sucking a joint, now hypocrital to the max. There are quotes out there somewhere of him castigating pot users to unlimited ends. As I remember, he wanted very long sentences for small possession and death for “large” possession–large in his words was not what even the DEA would call large. Take a look American voters citizens, take a good look. Newt is a real weirdo. I would not trust this guy to babysit for one minute, and this a real good standard for trusting someone, don’t you think so?


    James Shields

  9. darkcycle says:

    “You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It’s not mine, but it’s internally logical.”
    No statement on the coherence or logic of his position was forthcoming.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Internally consistent would have been a better phrase. It’s also internally logical if we want the Federal government to operate in compliance with the US Constitution.

      Now don’t you go conflating his position of how he thinks the Federal government policy should be written with the thought that he thinks that Federal policy should be policy in all 50 States as well. For example, the canard that he favors the re-legalization of (some) drugs because he thinks it’s none of the Federal government’s concern. I think you know better than that DC. At least I hope you do.

      • darkcycle says:


      • Windy says:

        Which he are you speaking of, dc and Duncan? Ron Paul wants an end to the federal prohibition of all drugs, as to what the States do, he leaves that up to the individual States, no across the board same law in all States. It is far easier to change the laws in a State than the laws in the fed gov, especially when the fed gov has no law on the issue in question.

        It is also easier to move from one State where the laws are not to one’s liking to one where the laws are more acceptable. Voting with one’s feet is a valid way of handling repressive State laws, and would have the added effect of causing a State to change its laws when too many of its citizens move to other more favorable States and it loses all that revenue from those former citizens.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          he = Ron Paul, which should be obvious because I was responding to a post about Mr. Paul. No, supporting the repeal of the Federal government’s involvement is not being in favor of re-legalization. Mr. Paul wouldn’t care if a State wanted to give people 20 years for a joint, and that’s hardly being in favor of re-legalization.

  10. Duncan20903 says:

    It’s no wonder that they hunted down witches like dogs, them turning poor unsuspecting people into Newts and all.

    Hopefully this demonstrates to everyone here just why we can not suffer a witch to live. While we owe a debt of gratitude to the witch hunters of the 16th Century, we can plainly see that they did overstate their success, and that they didn’t exactly wipe witches off the face of the earth.
    The domain name “” was sold for $4.20 million. The press release from General Cannabis actually says “an undisclosed amount” and there’s no mention if the price was paid in cash or if they went down to Kinko’s and had newly created shares of CANA freshly printed to pay for it.

    Oh my word, I haven’t seen a stock chart like this since the late ’90s when I shorted stock promotion frauds for a living. Now this is a classic example of the chart of one of those sugar coated turds:;range=2y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

  11. Newt will not get the nomination, though he’s correct about medical marijuana being a farce. Yes, it has medicinal value – without question. But it has been used and abused by so many in the states where it is allowed, leading many Americans to look askew at the data. I’ve said for years that medical marijuana was/is the wrong strategy for drug policy reform. The lack of success is evident in the few states where it is on the books, especially as raids continue almost unabated.

    Had our drug policy reform “leaders” focused on repealing drug prohibition, a good argument can be made that repealing marijuana prohibition would have occurred, if for no other reason than to shut us up – sort of like a consolation prize. Instead of bad-mouthing politicians for not enacting true drug policy reform, we should put to the fire the feet of Ethan et al.

    • Leonard Junior says:

      Sorry mate, I forgot my molotovs at home.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Sure Daniel, public support for medicinal cannabis patient protection is down to 77% nationwide according to a recent Gallup poll. With less than 80% support I guess repeal is just around the corner.

      But you are correct that it has nothing to do with cannabis law reform, but seem ignorant of the fact that it never has. That’s nothing but hysterical rhetoric created and promoted by Know Nothing prohibitionists.

      The benefits to the general issue of cannabis law reform that have accrued are by products despite just how significant of a help they’ve been. Medicinal cannabis patient protection laws were always about the patients, and it was done because it was the right thing to do. If there were or are potheads who think that there’s some sort of mechanism to legalize medicine for recreational use it was they who were scammed, and scammed by themselves.

      “Diversion” simply does not obviate the reality that there are very real people who are really very sick who get very real relief from this very real medicine. The so called “farce” of the Compassionate Use Act is actually a work of genius, and the further we get into the push back by the Know Nothings the more apparent that genius becomes. Watching this year’s events in Montana, Michigan, Colorado, New Jersey, Washington D.C., Delaware, and Arizona where the Know Nothings are having some to great success in limiting access by actual patients. It’s getting close to being worthy of being described as Stockholm Syndrome when people on our side of the table start adopting the pretzel logic of the Know Nothing prohibition, and that’s presuming that you’re not actually just one of them dressed in cannabis law reform drag.

      • Well, Duncan, that 77% must all live in the states where medical marijuana is law. How else to explain that less than 1/3 of the states have it on their books? And if I’m ignorant that it has nothing to do with cannabis law reform, so is Ethan Nadelmann. Because he (and other reform leaders) told me that medical marijuana was the “foot-in-the-door” approach to repealing drug prohibition. And those opposed to reform are correct to call medical marijuana a Trojan

        Again, marijuana has medicinal benefits. But those benefits have accrued to the smallest contingent of cannabis consumers – unless you add in all those who have faked it to
        get a medical card. For those not deep into the subject – which counts as most Americans – what has happened in California is a farce.

        And as far as me being just a Know Nothing prohibitionist in
        reform drag, well, that’s your opinion. But I’ve written a book about ending drug prohibition (which was a best-seller in Amsterdam), lectured across the country on college campuses and on dozens of radio talk shows regarding drug prohibition, and ran for political office with ending drug prohibition as my signature issue. Yeah, maybe that’s not much. I’m sure you’ve done so much more…

        • darkcycle says:

          Don’t even think about comparing feathers with the folks here, you’ll lose, flat out. The regulars here have on average thirty plus years in the drug war trenches. Paul Armentano is a semi regular here and he was a BABY when Duncan was organizing with NORML. Allan Erikson and the Media Awareness Program do more in a day than you’ve listed as your lifetime accomplishments.
          And Feathers aside, little brave, you’re wrong. Wrong on all counts. Just because Cannabis is a valuable palliative for dozens of maladies, and is less toxic than almost all of the pharmaceutical remedies is NOT a reason to decry cannabis medicine as a fraud. You may as well call aspirin snake oil because it is reccomended for so many uses.
          What has happened in California is an ongoing experiment. There is no established regulation of the industry, beyond the authorization of Prop.215. You have a wide open field with no rules, of course there will be idiots and bad actors. California has not, contrary to the assertions of the hysterical, devolved into a ruined society because of MMJ or even because of dispensaries. You want california’s biggest problem? Prop 13, not Prop 215.
          I’ll re-state. Diversion is a problem with all prescription medications. Period. Malingering to obtain prescriptions is the pain doctor’s biggest problem. No sane, compassionate human being denies a person in pain relief, because someone, somewhere else, MIGHT, just maybe be faking it.
          Ethan Nadelman is a tool. He does as much to harm this movement as good IMHO, and I don’t usually like criticizing people for taking a different approach. We’re all supposed to be pulling in the same direction, remember?
          Legal morphine for pain patients has nothing to do with legalizing opium dens for recreational purposes. Just like MMJ and legalizing pot for everybody have nothing to do with one another.

        • Chris says:

          How else to explain that less than 1/3 of the states have it on their books?

          Not every state has citizen ballot initiatives, or lawmakers who actually listen to their constituents.

        • darkcycle says:

          “Paul Armentano is a semi regular here and he was a BABY when Duncan was organizing with NORML.”
          No offense, Duncan. 😉

        • Windy says:

          “No sane, compassionate human being denies a person in pain relief, because someone, somewhere else, MIGHT, just maybe be faking it.”
          Tell that to that asshat Kerli and the DEA, they think they are the sane ones and the rest of us are crazy. Pain patients are facing the spectre of being denied effective relief due to their doctors’ fears of being targeted for investigation for over prescription of heavy duty pain meds. And the DEA is responsible for a shortage of Adderall and other amphetamines, tho Kerli denies it:
          From Radley Balko:
          FDA: U.S. facing severe Adderall shortage that is causing real harm to people who use the drug. DEA: Shut up.

          PS, this is NOT an attack on darkcycle, he’s right, just too bad our government is insane and most of the populace cannot (or choose to not) recognize that fact.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          So DC, did you go take a look at The Opium Den? Careful now, I seem to recall that you find homoerotic imagery disturbing so brace yourself. Our new friend Richard appears to be certifiable. He certainly has a problem with confirmation bias. Oh well, what do I know? I was just sitting in the NORML office back in 1994 (1993?) when a fellow who claimed that his name was Dennis Peron stopped by and pitched the nascent Prop 215 to guys who claimed their names were Dick Cowan, Allan St. Pierre and Rob Campia. Yes, Rob worked for NORML before he stole the membership list so he could solicit donations and started MPP.
          Last night I heard Jimi playing “Purple Haze” on the grocery store Muzak. Just to make the experience a little more surreal, at the end it segued into “White Christmas.” Is that what they called colored music? [drumroll][rimshot] Anyway, a couple of years ago I wondered if my old man heard Jimi the same way that rap sounds to me. I certainly can’t describe today’s popular “music” as being that. The nonsense that these whippersnappers call music nowadays!

          Last night I wondered how he felt the first time he heard Frank Sinatra on an elevator. But try as I might I can’t say that Frank sounds anything like Jimi. Perhaps it skips a generation? Frank is dead now but if he were alive can’t you just imagine that he’d be down with The Toyes and cover “Smoke Two Joints”? Here’s the swing version of that song to help you imagine that:

          ~ Richard Cheese from “Aperitif for Destruction” (forced advertisement precedes video)

          I must admit that I never thought that I’d say it, but I really do enjoy Dick Cheese and Lounge Against The Machine.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          There are currently 27 States + the District of Columbia which recognize cannabis as medicine. Lots of people are unaware of the 10 States which have codified medicinal cannabis practitioner protection laws and a lot of people neglect to include Maryland because we chose to sit squarely on the fence rather than commit one way or the other.

          The last time I checked the numbers with my calculator 28 was 54.90% of 51. Now I haven’t double checked but IIRC 54.90% is a bit better than 1/3.

          32 years old, going on 33:

          § 18.2-251.1. Possession or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes permitted.

          A. No person shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-250 or § 18.2-250.1 for the possession of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol when that possession occurs pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

          B. No medical doctor shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-248 or § 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol for medical purposes when such action occurs in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

          C. No pharmacist shall be prosecuted under §§ 18.2-248 to 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol to any person who holds a valid prescription of a medical doctor for such substance issued in the course of such doctor’s professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

          (1979, c. 435.)

    • darkcycle says:

      Daniel, the diversion and illegal trafficking problems apply across the board. Diversion of boner pills is a huge problem. Even diversion of anti-biotics regularly occurs. Everytime your Grammy orders her heart medicine from Canada, that is the grey market in pharmaceuticals at work. Mum-mum is a criminal, dude. Nobody seriously considers that an argument for making the entire pharmacopea schedule one. Now why would that reasoning apply to cannabis??

      • Chris says:

        The only reason diversion exists is because there is no legal recreational market for prescription drugs. I would consider getting high off of xanax or using adderall to study to be legitimate uses of those drugs when used responsibly, not abuse. There’s no reason in my mind that responsible adults should need to lie to a doctor to get any of these drugs, cannabis included.

      • Good on Duncan and everybody else. And it was nice of you to point out that I’m such small potatoes, even though being busted twice over 40 years ago could be considered “in the drug war trenches” – but nowhere did I say medical marijuana was a fraud.

        • darkcycle says:

          “though he’s correct about medical marijuana being a farce.” and “what has happened in California is a farce.”
          Excuse me. I stand corrected. You did not in fact say “fraud”…you called it a farce.

        • it is a farce — not because cannabinoids don’t work, but because, as Daniel stated, the “leaders,” are trying to use it as a trojan horse.

          like it or not, “matanuska thunderfuck” is not a name for a medicine — “sativex,” on the other hand, is. and that is what is happening right before our eyes.

          and if we’re going to play silly games: i’m not sure where i stand in the pecking order, but given that the #2 at norml has addressed me directly on this very forum (albeit in a truly lame attempt at sarcasm), i guess that i must wield some measure of influence. if that is the case, then let me say that you should be ashamed of yourselves for the way you are acting toward Daniel. although, to be fair, you should be ashamed about it in general, as knee-jerk pit-bulling is hardly the best way to prove that your point of view is correct. not to mention it’s a really shitty recruiting technique.

          i suggest you anonymous “regulars” avoid embarassing yourselves further. Daniel has all of the bona fides on the activist checklist: comprehensive understanding and command of the subject matter; direct experience (with the drugs themselves as well as with the foot of tyranny pressed against his neck); and better yet, he puts his face out there behind his words (hmmm … actually, more than just his face), which in and of itself is reason enough to evoke “saint foo” (stfu) on you

          he’s provably contributed a lot to the cause, and is out there in public view instead of mouthing off behind a veil. he has also directly contributed a lot to pete’s couch off and on over the years.

          lastly: hey “leaders,” where’s the plan?

        • Duncan20903 says:

          OK I was wrong. Regardless of one’s opinion of the reality of medicinal cannabis, upon objective observation California’s reality most certainly fits the description of a farce as enumerated below. It has fulfilled every element with the exception of the chase scene. That’s not really a big deal it looks like we’re almost there, and it’s optional anyway.

          In theatre, a farce is a comedy which aims at entertaining the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations, disguise and mistaken identity, verbal humour of varying degrees of sophistication, which may include word play, and a fast-paced plot whose speed usually increases, culminating in an ending which often involves an elaborate chase scene.

        • darkcycle says:

          Figgered I’d hear from you on this Brian. Well, I don’t stfu for anyone. I stand by my posts above and challenge you to tell me how it might have been different. If 215 had been more specific, or had been worded to include some sort of regulated dispensary program, it never could have passed and you know that.
          It’s bullshit to claim “Had our drug policy reform “leaders” focused on repealing drug prohibition, a good argument can be made that repealing marijuana prohibition would have occurred,…” How the hell do you figure that? There was less support for legalization BEFORE medical cannabis. The support for legalization was down around 25%, let’s see, it’s up to nearly fifty percent now….so… damn, I see that Medical Marijuana has irreperably hurt the chances of legalization.
          Brian. You’re wrong as usual, and there is no way in hell I’ll change the way I do things because of you. You seem to be the only one out there that gives a shit. If you wanna out me all it would take is a few minutes and the google. This is from my adopted son: fuck you.

        • darkcycle says:

          P.S. it’s a non-issue now, many of the regulars here have corresponded with me via e-mail and know me by my real name. In the community in which I live, I’m mostly out and vocal about my activism. The pseudonym is still around because I LIKE it. …..and to bug you.

  12. despicableG says:

    Gingrinch won’t be happy with this: A new study clearly shows a nearly nine percent drop in traffic deaths and a five percent reduction in beer sales in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use.

    “Our research suggests that the legalization of medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities through reducing alcohol consumption by young adults,” — Daniel Rees, professor of economics at the University of Colorado Denver who co-authored the study with D. Mark Anderson, assistant professor of economics at Montana State University.
    The researchers collected data from a variety of sources including the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

    • Peter says:

      Not just newt…i’m sure the mccain family, including Anheuser-Busch heiress Cindy-Lou “junkie-barbie” Hensley, will not be happy to hear that beer sales drop with cannabis reform.

      • Furball says:

        Which is funny, ’cause I guess some folks haven’t learned to pair their fine beers and cannabis nuggets together; much like a good dark beer with a steak or an IPA with fish.

    • stayan says:

      Based on Australian data:

      alcohol and marijuana seem to be substitutes, with cross-price elasticities ranging from .1 (for beer with respect to the price of marijuana) to .5 (spirits/marijuana); (iii) according to a survey at UWA, about 50 percent of first-year students have used marijuana; and (iv) legalisation would increase marijuana consumption by about 13 percent, with most of that accounted for by daily and weekly users, and alcohol consumption would fall.

      Any decrease in alcohol consumption is a good thing for public health.

    • Chris says:

      I can verify this effect personally. My friends all drink far less alcohol now that my state has medical marijuana. And everyone drives stoned, but it’s completely harmless compared to driving drunk, which they have almost no reason to do anymore. One friend was on probation for an alcohol DUI, got a medical marijuana recommendation and has been using that instead. It’s about time that the “marijuana use will go up if it is legalized!” argument should be considered a pro instead of a con. It’s simply not likely for people to continue their same rates of alcohol use when they have a safer alternative.

    • ironic as hell: less use of medicinal alcohol

  13. JDV says:

    Conservatives are supposed to believe in the power of the market to achieve public good. That all goes out the window when someone says “drugs.”

    • Francis says:

      Conservatives are supposed to believe in a lot of things: “individual liberty,” “limited government,” opposition to the “nanny-state,” “respecting the tenth amendment,” and “ending hugely expensive government programs with a track record of failure.” I’m not quite sure how they reconcile those beliefs with their support for the war on drugs.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      What in the world makes people think that Newt is a conservative? What, because he says so? Now, what other things do we accept as fact based on the word of Mr. Gingrich? I wouldn’t even believe that he’s a human being on his say so.

      • claygooding says:

        I would doubt Dr Spock if he told me GNewt was a people.

      • Duncan20903 says:

        I demand that all politicians be tested.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          I did mean that their DNA be tested, to prove that they’re human. There’s enough monkey business in Congress without electing actual monkeys to office.
          Dr. Spock was a pediatrician. I’d believe him if he told me that Newt was just a big baby. Regardless, I think you meant Mr. Spock, who will be the Science Officer on the Starship Enterprise a few hundred years from now.

    • Windy says:

      Some conservatives support the drug war — most social conservatives, all neo-cons and those who give lip service to limited government and individual freedom.

      True conservatives understand prohibition of anything is not only wrong, it is illegal per the Supreme Law of the Land. Ron Paul is a real Constitutional conservative, and he’s not the only one:

      Also, Ron Paul (who says federal prohibition must be ended and will do all he can to make sure that happens) won the most recent CHQ poll (they hold them weekly) with 56% of the votes, Gingrich was second with 14%:
      So there are a lot of true conservatives supporting him, besides the Independents, Democrats, and libertarians who will be caucusing and voting for him.

  14. allan says:

    ya know a man hears things in a lifetime that are WOW! moments, but being a third party sometimes negates the tale’s telling… there is a story about Newt that I heard over a decade ago concerning his ganja use during college that would decimate any public office aspirations he might ever have… lord I wish the person involved would speak up. Newt’s inflated himself again and he’s such an obnoxious turd when in the lyme light… please Newt, go away.

    Diving in to the current discussion… I was thinking today that the whole mmj/legalization dichotomy can be compared to one of my favorite tales of all time…

    A Boy and His Dog

    Based on a tale by one of the most attitudinal writers out there, Harlan Ellison, it’s a futuristic post-apocalypse cautionary tale… Don Johnson stars in the film (but not in Ellison’s story) and of course, the dog. Johnson thinks he’s landed in heaven (the story takes place largely underground) but things are not what they seem.

    I’ve learned over these many years to avoid dissing others publicly and while I appreciate the props I ain’t all that. (Although I did think when I applied for the DPA position in CO I thought I’d at least get an interview…) Most assuredly I’m proud of what I’ve done in drug policy, a lot of what I’m most proud of doesn’t even have my name affiliated w/ it. We really need to lay animosity aside, especially here on the couch.

    If you’re not familiar w/ A Boy and His Dog I recommend both the original by Ellison and the movie. As with any good tale there are lots of layers to it and Harlan Ellison is rarely subtle…

    In a rigged game you only win if the house wants you to. Drug policy is a rigged game. And the only way to chase a cheating shyster out of town is to expose the fraud for all to see. That’s our task chicas y chicos. Expose the fraud.

    I don’t think the path to legalization can be found following the mmj path. I think the best path is the one a lot of us here follow… (Malcolm of course being the modern day Crazy Horse of drug policy) finding our own way, fighting in our own style with others of like mind.

    And having said all that… I don’t think we’ve yet hit stride. Something is coming that will seal Prohibition’s doom (beyond the cleaving axe of the bookkeepers). Call it a feeling. Besides winter is here, it’s hunker down and survive time. Which, I suspect, will (environmentally speaking) continue taking increasingly larger chunks of our collective attention.

    • claygooding says:

      Right arm,farm out and graaavy.

      I couldn’t have said that,,but I feel it.

    • ezrydn says:

      Allan me boy, I have this underlying feeling that the Febuary “suprise” will be nothing but a rehash on the old rehash. After all this time, you really expect something “new?” Why?

      Newt has already stated the obvious..What he did was illegal, whereas, what we do is immoral. There’s your new(t) change. They’ll simply change formats and concepts, thereby firing up the morality zelots. You have to remember, they think as “Crusaders.”

      • allan says:

        Hola ez… I think about you, sitting around el patio, con su compadres, all warm and enjoying the sun… especially on days when the high is only 40º here and I’m working outside.

        I’m not feeling that it’s gonna come from them (all they have is frijoles and they just keep refrying those pintos, re-re-re-fritos) but rather from – or for – us.

        Considering the alignment of forces massing on the horizon (remember folks, the NAAcP has been quiet to date since their weighing in w/ their support), I truly do think we will have something occur that will be a key moment in the chronicles of dpr.

    • darkcycle says:

      arrrrrr…alright. I should take it easy (easier) on the folks who come here to post. After all. I’m the one alway reminding everyone we’re all on the same side. Sorry, Daniel and Brian. My bad. Just wanted to make my points in the most effective way I could, and I crossed into abuse.
      Darn you, Allan…

      • allan says:

        my best friend of 35 years has been married about 30 of those – to the same woman! – and I teasingly call him Mr Responsibility. He hates that… and of course when it comes to me “being responsible… well, I’ve roamed the West and fought on a few different fronts. My first job in oregon paid $800 a month, but it was 3 miles in behind a locked gate, deep in the ancient forest, off the grid and about the coolest place ever.

        I sacrificed the responsible way of working my way up the system and financial planning and a good health plan in favor of working outside, being political, being an artist and writer.

        But some of my bro’s responsible nature has rubbed off. Sorry about that… I must be molting.

      • No problem – accepted.

      • that was my point, darkcycle — apology accepted. i totally respect you for doing so. but tell your son i’m not a football coach ;^)

        • darkcycle says:

          Brian, I appreciate the efforts everybody puts forward, and I respect yours and everybody elses contributions to the movement. Even Nadleman’s succeeded in moving the ball further down field (football analogy was purely accidental 😉 ). If you look at the barometer of public opinion, we are surely doing something right, you don’t get twenty-five percentage points of movement in about a decade unless you are being effective. But as I am painfully aware, it is not happening nearly fast enough for any of us.
          Frustration and anger are our motivators. We eat that shit for breakfast. In some way that has to come out. This is a high stakes game with more dissapointments than satisfactions. If we get testy with one another, I figure it’s okay so long as we remember we’re allies, at at war with the same enemy. And that we all spend a good bit of time up here with one another, hashing this thing out. We’re potheads, so we are all doing this thing the way WE think it should be done. Even the different organizations have a hard time working together. NORML’s doing it’s thing, MPP’s lobbying and throwing parties to attract the money. Leap is standing there furrowing it’s collective cop eyebrows at their former peers, but nobody’s on the same page in this movement. We seem to be getting the job done, but like assembling a toy for my son, the job will take twice as long because we’re stoned. So we don’t agree once in a while. BFD. Sorry, bro.

        • no problem darkcycle!

          where the boots are on the ground, we are doing a lot right. so i think a good bit of the change in public opinion is attributable to the direct efforts of the trench dwellers. of course, attrition of the opposition due to dying from old age has contributed greatly to the cause too. more than 50% of Americans have admitted that they’ve tried pot — so it should be clear that arriving at the milestone of 50% of the population being on our side was a no-brainer at some point.

          and you nailed it: “nobody’s on the same page.” which is one of the fundamental jobs of “leaders” — to get everybody marching in the same direction. fortunately, the truth of the matter is that we don’t actually need them.

          i can’t wait for the day when all of us couch pot-atoes can gather for a victory smoke. but i’m sure as hell not willing to wait another 40 years for the “leaders” to get their shit together.

  15. Duncan20903 says:

    All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~ Paul Simon

    A pocketful of mumbles indeed.

    In the clearing stands a boxer,
    And a fighter by his trade
    And he carries the reminders
    Of ev’ry glove that laid him down
    And cut him till he cried out
    In his anger and his shame,
    “I am leaving, I am leaving.”
    But the fighter still remains

  16. claygooding says:

    This should tie a knot in Kerli’s tail!!!

    Medical Marijuana Reduces Traffic Deaths, Alcohol Use: Study

    We know that marijuana can cause most people to drive more carefully than they do sober,,much less drunk,,it will take a while before the rest of America realizes it.

    A joint before driving in Dallas rush hour traffic should be a requirement.

    Hmmm,,marijuana use reduces alcohol use,,,hmmm

Comments are closed.