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
October 2012
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Authors

A politician who gets it

In Sunday’s Guardian: Legalising marijuana: most Americans get it, so when will our politicians? by Gary Johnson

After Prohibition’s repeal in 1933, kids didn’t start drinking in record numbers. Society didn’t collapse. Today, bathtub gin dealers don’t run amok on playgrounds; microbreweries don’t protect their turf with automatic weapons. Instead, a safe environment to drink was created when the government began regulating and taxing alcohol.

And yet, here we are in 2012, giving Prohibition another shot. For lack of a better word, that’s just stupid.

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

13 comments to A politician who gets it

  • War Vet

    and booze dealing terrorists aren’t flying airplanes into our buildings and aren’t moonshineing 6,500 U.S. troops to death in the Middle East from illegal liquor money. Why aren’t enough cops dieing for their right to keep drugs illegal like troops are -sad law enforcement is too chicken to get killed or their legs blown off from drug money insurgents . . . not enough cops are dieing for the cause . . . maybe the Mexicans will help them out when trying to try caskets on for size . . . every cop should be honored to have a drug money bought bullet whiz by them . . . 100,000’s of U.S. soldiers since Vietnam have had that ‘honor’.

  • Gary Johnson gets it. Here is another American that gets it: Eugene Jarecki, Director of the new documentary “The House I Live In”.

    “The thing about America’s drug policies is that they’re so engrained into the country’s psyche, so frighteningly normal for most people, that many never stop to process just how truly draconian they are. For me, it took the perspective of a historian to reveal how the drug war looks in the context of many of history’s other examples of societies that single out populations within them for draconian law enforcement and denigration.” …”I almost started the whole film with this quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller, because it encapsulates one of the core points I was trying to make:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– 
Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

    …”when we allow a precedent to be set as we have with the war on drugs where the nonviolent are given sentences in jail once reserved for violent crimes, we have warped our legal system”.

    http://tinyurl.com/8wc9m5d

    • Peter

      Thanks TC for the heads up. I will try to see Jarecki’s documentary… he hits it with the frightening normality of drug war persecution

  • Peter

    OT
    This is the sort of anti-science lunacy we’re up against. Love all the dead animals behind him. Even the deer look as though they know he’s talking nonsense…

    http://tinyurl.com/9vehov7

    • claygooding

      I think a lot of the doubt on scientific evidence is caused by our government,not just on marijuana bought propaganda science but anytime they think they need more leverage for any agenda,,the science always seems to show up.

    • We'reAllDoomed

      Oh fuck, how is this even possible in a supposedly educated nation?

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      I’ve really never understood why the religionists don’t just incorporate evolution into their dogma. It seems like a pretty slick way to create an ecosystem to me, just start the reaction and come back in a couple of billion years and find the finished product. But I guess omnipotence doesn’t mean all that it used to mean.

      Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

  • C.E.

    So a British newspaper reports on a candidate for U.S. president who is virtually unknown in the United States. Way to go, American media.

  • nebula

    Actually, most Americans don’t get it. Gary Johnson is the most obscure candidate. Lefties hate him because he’s a privatization/fiscally conservative type of guy and righties hate him because he is socially tolerant. America is a great country with a great constitution. But most of her citizens just don’t get it.

  • Cold Blooded

    Two Republicans came out in support of a couple state-level legalized marijuana initiatives:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/marijuana-legalization-gop_n_1941504.html

  • athEIst

    Actually it is much worst than Prohibition. Prohibition criminalized manufacture, sale, or distribution of alcohol. There were no possession penalties.
    Also, Prohibition had a constitutional amendment(XVIII) delegating a power to the Federal government rather than some extraconstitutional commerce clause cum scheduling rigamarole

  • athEIst

    Note the “but not conumption” and the “It did not specifically prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors”

    While the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the production, sale, and transport of “intoxicating liquors”, it did not define “intoxicating liquors” or provide penalties. It granted both the federal government and the states the power to enforce the ban by “appropriate legislation.” A bill to do so was introduced in Congress in 1919.

    The bill was vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson, largely on technical grounds because it also covered wartime prohibition, but his veto was overridden by the House on the same day, October 28, 1919, and by the Senate one day later.[9] The three distinct purposes of the Act were:

    to prohibit intoxicating beverages,
    to regulate the manufacture, sale, or transport of intoxicating liquor (but not consumption), and
    to ensure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye and other lawful industries and practices, such as religious rituals.[10]
    It provided further that “no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, or furnish any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act.” It did not specifically prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors. The act defined intoxicating liquor as any beverage containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume and superseded all existing prohibition laws in effect in states that had such legislation

  • certainly like your website but you need to test the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very bothersome to inform the truth however I will certainly come back again.