Important Drug War Video

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Important Drug War Video

  1. Cannabis says:

    This is what happens when you have a system to empower authorities instead of experts and policy makers instead of leaders. Only once they retire do you see the truth come out of people.

  2. claygooding says:

    I only have one problem with the CATO org,,the Koch brothers run it,,,how are these guys,,the very essence of big industry opposed to hemp legalization,,planning on protecting their other industries that legal hemp production will impact?

    • Windy says:

      clay, they don’t “run” Cato, they just donate to it. Do you run this site just because you donate to it? The Koch brothers fund a lot of libertarian orgs and causes. The libertarians are the ones who are fighting hardest to keep us all free, please don’t denigrate them or their donors.

  3. primus says:

    The fact that the Koch brothers have donated to this cause indicates their willingness to deal with such fallout. Judge them not on their reputation but on their actions; they have ponied up where others have not. Proof is in the pudding.

  4. claygooding says:

    Barney Frank got into a heated discussion with George Will over marijuana legalization on ABC’s ‘This Week with Christiane Amanpour’.

    “If someone wants to smoke marijuana who’s an adult, why do you want to make them go to jail?” Frank asked.

    “I need to know more about whether it’s a gateway drug to other drugs, I need to know how you’re going to regulate it” Will answered.

    “Anything is a gateway to anything,” the congressman said, calling the conservative columnist’s remark “a slippery slope argument.”

    “What you’re calling a cop out, I’m calling a quest for information,” Will said.

    “How long is it going to last?” Frank shot back.

    • Francis says:

      Here’s something that’s been bugging me, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen addressed. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that the “gateway theory” is true. (I know. I know. Bear with me.) I’ve never understood how it works as a rationale for maintaining cannabis prohibition. So the prohibs claim that cannabis is dangerous because it allegedly (through some mysterious, as-yet-unexplained mechanism) predisposes an individual to try “harder” illegal drugs that are actually in-and-of-themselves dangerous. Therefore, or so the argument goes, we should make cannabis illegal so that this dangerous “gateway” to [crack / heroin / meth / scary drug du jour] addiction is unavailable. But if making a drug illegal were all it took to make it “unavailable” then legal cannabis couldn’t act as a gateway to the presumably still illegal (and therefore “unavailable”) harder drugs. And of course, the empirical evidence that criminalizing cannabis has not succeeded at making this alleged gateway unavailable is overwhelming. Over 40 percent of Americans over the age of 12 acknowledge that they’ve tried cannabis… so what am I missing?

    • Francis says:

      That George Will / Barney Frank clip is fascinating. I think it’s revealing to note how incredibly defensive George Will is. (Watch him shift in his seat when the question is put to him. Suddenly uncomfortable, George?) He’s asked whether he supports cannabis legalization and the first words out of his mouth are to note his support for Frank’s internet gambling bill?! It’s a non-sequitur that can only be understood as a bit of an apology. (“Awww, c’mon man. Don’t give me a hard time for being a narc. I want to legalize online gambling. That’s pretty good, right? I’m not a complete statist.”) And he can’t even bring himself to defend prohibition, instead using the cop-out that he needs more information. (And by the way George, you can call your cop-out a “ham and cheese on rye” if you like, but that doesn’t make it one.) Regardless of what you think of his politics, Will is a smart and articulate guy. But you wouldn’t know it from watching that clip. He cannot wait (and neither can Paul Ryan) for the subject to be changed. As Frank says, the issue “is a great embarrassment to the conservatives.” You’re damn right it is, and that embarrassment is very much on display in that clip.

      • Windy says:

        It is (or it should be) just as much an embarrassment for the liberals/progressives, because they have as many prohibitionists on their team as the conservatives do, and two of those lelft side prohibitionists are in the WH, now (Joe Biden is one of the worst, it was his legislation that created the ONDCP and its mandate to lie about drugs) and the executive branch under Obama, specifically, is full of prohibitionists.

        • Francis says:

          I agree 100%. But as someone who started out on the right before becoming a libertarian (what can I say, it’s how I was raised), I tend to be harder on “conservative” drug warriors because I think they should know better. And (to me, anyway) their hypocrisy is more glaring. The fact is that Republicans and self-described conservatives are less likely to support reform than Democrats and self-described liberals. I think it’s absurd that the party and ideology that styles itself as a champion of “limited government” and “individual liberty” (not to mention the 10th Amendment) is (generally) so bad on this issue.

      • A Critic says:


        Re: Gateway theory

        The explanation is simple but sad: prohibitionists are stupid. They lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the illogic of their own arguments.

  5. Duncan20903 says:

    Poor Harry J Anslinger is turning over in his grave. How could these people get the gateway theory so bass ackward? Everyone knows that heroin is the gateway to Merry Wanna!

  6. CorporateMediaAlert says:

    “Why doesn’t the headline read: Latin American leaders fault U.S. Drug Policy? — “the authorities in consumer countries should explore all possible alternatives to eliminate exorbitant profits of criminals, including regulatory or market options.” So why the blatant dishonesty? “

    Latin American leaders fault U.S. drug users

  7. ezrydn says:

    Here’s a thought. The Christian Right has pasted the word “morality” to a plant, as we all know. My question is , since a “plant” was the basis of the origin of sin (a tree), why aren’t apples prohibited? Look at the problem that ingesting the fruit of THAT plant caused mankind!

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Probably because apples were some person’s artistic license in trying to represent the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There was no apple tree in Genesis.

      I can make an excellent argument that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in fact cannabis.

      • darkcycle says:

        While we’re at it, we could debate whether the Porridge consumed by Goldilocks was made from Millet or cannabis seed. Or what kind of bean it was Jack traded for, that later became the famous beanstalk. Fairy tales are fairy tales.

      • ezrydn says:

        Duncan– To them, it WAS an apple tree. I’m just using THEIR metaphors.

  8. claygooding says:

    Everyone knows how damaging to our political system it was to designate corporations as people but the other side of that coin could prove interesting.

    If corporations are people,would not everyone in that corporation,stockholders included,be held responsible for any crimes the corporation commits?

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Umm, if you’re trying to use that argument that the 1st Amendment applies only to people, that argument is an epic fail. Please re-read the 1st Amendment and tell me where it says anything about people only?

      Why would we hold people who have nothing to do with a crime liable for the crime? I’d rather see equal enforcement of the laws. If a dispensary is convicted of violating cannabis prohibition they’re promptly put out of business. Why the heck are Purdue Pharmaceuticals and CVS Pharmacies still in business?

      Both could have been forced into liquidation for their actions. But your suggestion would have had retired school teachers convicted of criminal acts for nothing other than being vested in a retirement plan that owned shares of either corporation even if those shares are nothing more than part of a mindless index fund. I’m really not understanding the public benefit of such a policy.

      Say, you might find the story of how Vioxx got FDA approval fascinating. Here’s a good starting point:

      Really old man, the existence of corporations serve a significant purpose. NORML, your public library, most if not all rural volunteer Fire Departments, and even soup kitchens are organized as corporations. Indicting the entire system of corporation formations because of the existence of criminals is just as silly as blaming people who enjoy cannabis for the existence of Mexican cartels. Criminals will take advantage of any structure created. I see your submission as suggesting that we throw away the baby with the bath water.

      Why in the world would you want the Government to be able to tell NORML to shut up?

  9. claygooding says:

    Because the baby is spoilt,,:<0

Comments are closed.