FDL Book Salon – join in on Saturday afternoon

On Saturday, I will be hosting an online book salon over at FireDogLake. The topic is:

FDL Book Salon: “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know”

Authors Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken are scheduled to be there and I’ll be leading the discussion.

Saturday, August 11 from 2-4 pm Pacific time, 4-6 pm Central, 5-7 pm Eastern. If you don’t have an account at FDL, it wouldn’t hurt to head over before then to set one up, so you can participate in the discussion.

For those expecting fireworks, you probably won’t see them from me. It’s different when I’m on my own couch at my own blog. Here, I’ve been graciously invited to visit someone else’s place and host (not debate), in order to facilitate a discussion.

Oh, I’ll probably have some pointed questions along with serving up some softballs, but mostly, I’m going to make sure that readers will have a chance to get their questions answered.

So come over to FDL on Saturday and

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to FDL Book Salon – join in on Saturday afternoon

  1. darkcycle says:

    I’m there! I may not participate, but if I do I promise I’ll be on my best behavior.

  2. Pingback: Anonymous

  3. claygooding says:

    Pete,I wish you could ask them the question on God not able to enforce prohibition when He is all knowing and only had 2 people to watch,,how much more info will the government require in order to achieve success?

    I know it’s far fetched but would love to hear these self righteous “Authors” field that one.

  4. Matthew Meyer says:

    Given that the authors admit most drug use is unproblematic (in clinical terms, at least), how do they justify using criminal sanctions or coercive treatment on the vast majority (80%+) of illegal drug consumers who are not “addicts”?

    In other words, where would they (or, even, would they) place limits on the state’s power to forbid behavior that potentially harms others? The notion that private consumption extends beyond oneself is the “gateway notion” to prohibition, and maybe we’ve done a piss-poor job of making prohibs bring reason into that discussion.

    • strayan says:

      To my knowledge no prohibitionist has ever been able to explain why punishing people for using cannabis is fair and just.

      How can we possibly decide whether we should change our policy unless we know why we have that policy in the first place? Unless a reason to punish drug users has been put on the table, opponents of the status quo have nothing to which they can respond. http://goo.gl/19pTh

  5. Duncan20903 says:


    The Washington State Office of Financial Management has a 5 p.m. [PDT] deadline [today] to release its report on the economic impact of Initiative 502 which would legalize and tax marijuana.

    It is already promising to be controversial. Opponents of 502 say the initial estimates made by the state were way off, and the OFM has told us they will not be making the final report available until the close of business.


  6. claygooding says:

    NAACP Endorses Oregon Marijuana Legalization Measure


    “”The National Association for the Advancement for Colored People (NAACP) Alaska Oregon Washington State-Area Conference (AOWS-AC) has endorsed Oregon Measure 80, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act and calls on voters who are committed to equality and civil justice to vote for Measure 80 on this November’s ballot.””

    This will help take out some of the opposition to ending prohibition,,,while church leaders may not support legalization they may try to avoid any racist connection supporting prohibition.

  7. CJ says:

    hey pete i wanted to ask about this. well you know, despite being frustrated with the…well, i guess, overwhelming amount of pot legalization/etc and so on i will say i nevertheless enjoyed reading the whole bit you’d written about this book and the taking of the others to task on their outrageous contradictions and general bologna. I mean, In my opinion it certainly seems as though this lot is a prohibition lot who are using the color me reformist but you cant take away what i truly am gig that so many… i guess, so called forward thinking prohibition opponents like to do now.

    Bearing that in mind, i just worry that, these people, who are obviously totally aware of you and your writings naturally since theyve asked you to do this. I think they are using you. Let me just be honest. I think they know they are full of it, there book is full of it and they must have had atleast a handful of behind the scenes discussions about you and this site and i think because you took the calm and deliberate approach of exposing their contradictions and bs with fact and professionalism, well, it sorta shattered their concept of being *THE* (not so) moderate voice on the matter. To get back in your good graces and the good graces of the people you represent, i think theyve chosen this way of doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised if they played up their involvement with you to atleast a minor degree after this is done.

    you know i have to tell you, im so sorry but, and this is about these authors, you know, im so sorry but the tone of their work, the tone of them on media forums, i mean its just blatantly obvious that over-educated,
    overly sheltered by “the system” and yes i do believe educational facilities of most kinds are unfortunately, despite the occassional brilliant professor, nevertheless, THE SYSTEM, are a very ill informed lot. The system protects and indulges the ego and the concept of perfection as a means to be obtained. I mean, i think this lot has a tremendous ego that i think was being polished by alot of lame third parties and i think it was great that you were able to put out the truth. I find this lot detestable and egocentric, among many other things, no where near the kind of human beings that should be discussing the prohibition problem. Im sorry. Thats my opinion. Who am I? well, i am a person with more right than they to talk about drugs. Im sorry its just the truth.

    Pete i really wish you WOULD go the fireworks route and light a stink on this. I KNOW you gotta be PROFESSIONAL etc. etc. eh but those are also silly concepts of this pathetic and transparent phony politically correct hyper insecure get rid of bullies dont smoke dont physically scold your children, wear a polo shirt go to school go to college get a job reproduce get old get irrelevant go away and die society. I think the so called “unwritten laws” of life are modern inventions with perhaps not modern roots but nevertheless, jaded anglo-saxon catholic, god-fearing roots, so please Pete dont worry about professionalism, i guarantee if you pull up your expose on their work and read that instead of excerpts from their propaganda, it would be a far greater service to us and our lot and our issue and our cause than anything this bunch could ever do. Naturally they’re not all there, whatever the excuse for the other is probably not true, theyll be listening, dude, you really did bruise a very egocentric groups pretty witty widdle ego and it was great. I hope this is all polish and when it comes time you will light firework after firework

    • Pete says:

      CJ – it isnt the authors who asked me to host. It’s FDL Book Salon. I seriously doubt the authors would have chosen me.

      I’ll balance being a good host with asking pointed questions.

    • darkcycle says:

      CJ, Pete was likely picked because of the review of this book he did for us, right here. The FDL people don’t play that game. They want a heated debate and they went to the right guy. And they also know the folks who post on Pete’s website will likely be participating (Jon Walker and the “Just say Now” folks at FDL know this site well). I don’t have to tell you that the very mention of Kleiman’s name here starts the fireworks, and there is no shortage of opinions about that book.
      FDL knows we come as a package deal. Dude, look at the people on this couch. I don’t care who you are or what school you are teaching at. With the intellectual asskicking capacity represented here on this smelly old sofa, they’re the ones being set up here.

      • Duncan20903 says:

        I like that term, “intellectual ass kicker”. It’s so appropriate since the enemies of freedom have their intellect up their asses.

  8. claygooding says:

    Measure to legalize pot could bring billions to state coffers


    Legalized marijuana might be a lucrative revenue source for the state — if the federal government were to permit it.

    “”OLYMPIA — If voters pass Initiative 502 this fall allowing adults to legally grow, sell and smoke marijuana, it could spur an economic boon generating a half-billion dollars a year for the state coffers.””

    Since the estimates does not include the savings reflected by not prosecuting/imprisoning people for marijuana it isn’t a complete picture of the savings.

  9. Duncan20903 says:


    Oh my gawd, the Washington Office of Financial Management said the State might collect as much as $2 billion over 5 years. They also said that the Feds might steal the tax revenue as proceeds of transactions that are illegal under federal law. Sheesh, talk about less than helpful. This analysis is going to be read by the fanatics on both sides as supporting evidence for their respective positions.

    For some unexplained reason the OFM report did not speculate what might happen if it’s proved that Snoop Dogg Lion is in fact the reincarnation of Bob Marley.

    Because the federal response remains unclear, Washington’s analysts said they could not determine the ultimate effect of I-502 on the state’s finances. However, they said, assuming a fully functioning marijuana market develops — and that it entirely replaces the existing illicit market — state revenue from pot sales could be more than $1.9 billion over the next five years. The state typically spends $30 billion per two-year budget cycle. linky

    • claygooding says:

      IMO,the feds are walking a tight wire right now and with the polls supporting mmj lgzn and outright legalization nuimbers rising,,how far do they want to push us,,,especially since this is such an obvious multi-billion dollar/job creating issue that we,the people need. Our state and local economies need this a lot more than any federal monies.

  10. Duncan20903 says:

    I really find common sense from elected officials to be very confusing. I really don’t understand how that could happen.

    Uruguay One Step Closer To Legalizing Marijuana, Bill Sent to Congress
    August 11, 2012

    Uruguay’s government has sent Congress a bill to legalize marijuana and regulate the production, distribution and sale of the drug, touting it as a means of combating drug-trafficking and crime.

    “The government will assume control and regulation over the activities of importing, producing, acquiring title, storing, selling and distributing marijuana and its derivatives,” the proposed legislation says.

    Presidential aide Diego Canepa confirmed that the legislation had been introduced and clarified that mention made in the bill regarding importation referred to marijuana seeds.

    Canepa said the purpose of the bill was to wrest away from drug dealers a market valued at between $30 million and $40 million annually.

    “No one is saying marijuana is good” but only that public policy that “has not produced the expected results over more than 50 years” must be changed,” he added.

    • claygooding says:

      If their govt intends to remove the green market it will require that they produce a consistent quality of marijuana at a price below what a grower would find as a money maker,,,,that will be the intelligence test.

  11. darkcycle says:

    Okay. I’m in with an opener, but no one’s there yet.

    • darkcycle says:

      Alright. That was bloody brief. Moderated out of the conversation. Pete was that you? Not effin’ fair.

      • Pete says:

        REally? Not me. I don’t have that power there.

        • Matthew Meyer says:

          My last two or three comments don’t seem to have posted, either.

          One was in support of Pete’s question about Tashkin, which I never saw answered.

          When you use a tiny study instead of the big, government-funded one that reaches the opposite conclusion, genteel readers may inquire as to your selection criteria!

      • darkcycle says:

        I was blocked out and I was being a very, very good boy. I made one mildly snarky observation. It was a little-bitty one, and it’s still there. But BOOM! booted without so much as a howdy.

  12. Matthew Meyer says:

    Nice job, Pete. Thanks for keeping their feet to the fire a bit.

    But I feel cynical, unsure if I got censored or what.

    What do you feel about the salon? Was CJ right?

  13. darkcycle says:

    Really. It was ultimately pretty well established throughout the course of the discussion. A bunch of prohibitionists in moderate drag.
    Really, really good job, Pete.

  14. daksya says:

    Pete, did anyone reply to your question in #58 i.e. why the Tashkin study wasn’t included in the evidence review of cannabis-cancer link?

    • Pete says:

      Nope. Absolute silence on that one.

      • Hope says:

        Not mentioning the Tashkin Report, and not answering your question about it is stunning.

        Why would all four choose to leave it out of their “informative” book and not one of them answer your important question?

  15. Peter says:

    is it possible to read the discussion/comments after the salon is over? if so pl link

  16. Duncan20903 says:

    New book discounts theory of marijuana as top US cash crop

    But new research dumps cold water on many of these claims, concluding that far from being America’s biggest cash crop, marijuana probably isn’t even in the top five. Rather, marijuana might make the top 15, “ranking somewhere between almonds and hay and perhaps closest to potatoes and grapes,” the researchers say.

    These findings are part of a new book, “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” by a team of researchers and public policy experts from Carnegie Mellon University, Pepperdine University, UCLA and the RAND Corp.

    The authors, Jonathan Caulkins, Angela Hawken, Mark Kleiman and Beau Kilmer, analyze the costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, challenging many commonly held assumptions on both sides of the issue.

    “Never let the facts get in the way of disseminating an effective piece of hysterical rhetoric”
    ~~The motto of the Know Nothing prohibitionist

Comments are closed.