The irony for the U.S. government is that Mexico, and the rest of the world, now has a U.S. precedent to cite when creating blueprints for a post-Drug War world.

“Now we are not like madmen in the desert,” Jorge Hernández, president of the Collective for an Integral Drug Policy and legalization advocate, told Time. “This transforms the debate.”

The votes in Washington and Colorado have world-wide significance.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Emboldening

  1. claygooding says:

    Exactly,how long do you think it will take Holland,Portugal and Spain to legalize marijuana in their countries,,they are searching for cash generating enterprises and right now is the time to make a move on it,,while the iron is hot.

    And I don’t think they will care how the DEA or DOJ reacts to the vote.

  2. darkcycle says:

    Yep, posted this a few threads back, but it went unnoticed in the hub-bub.

    • claygooding says:

      I will be searching op-eds out of Europe tomorrow for sure,,you know some people over there are gearing up for a slam dunk,,before the DEA can make any kind of response to the new laws.

  3. there’s a big difference between legalizing pot in two states versus legalizing it in an entire nation.

    as i see it, there are only three possible scenarios: withdrawal from the single convention, raid the large scale grows and stores, or invoke legal actions against the states.

    the big problem in all of this is the single convention — a treaty that has the same legal standing as the Constitution itself. withdrawal from the single convention would be great, but is extremely unlikely.

    thus, the feds have absolutely no choice but to act quickly against the states. raids are the most likely outcome should either state allow the set up of large scale commercial grows and retail stores. but that could lead to other messy political problems.

    that leaves lawsuits as the path of least resistance — and such action will delay the aforementioned grow and retail operations. bogging it all down in the courts is the easiest way to ensure that the states could not possibly move forward.

    worst of all, no matter what, people are still going to fail drug tests and lose jobs. it ain’t gonna be pretty sports fans.

    despite all the whining and hand-wringing over “states rights” — federal law is the trump card.

    if you don’t believe it, explain the civil war — and then make a guess as to what would happen if the citizens of one state voted that it was perfectly fine to have a legal regulated market for buying and selling humans.

    we won’t have to wait too long to find out in which direction the feds will go — but it really is way too early to “break out the cheetos”

    • claygooding says:

      Your comparison of marijuana legalization and slavery is the same ploy the prohibs use when the lump marijuana harms and possible dangers in with heroin,meth and alcohol,,the act of legalizing marijuana is not comparable to the act of enslavement and your hyperbole is noted.

      • Leonard Junior says:

        Honestly clay, the comparison is a good one in regards to what is considered federally acceptable to buy and sell– the commerce clause is what makes the CSA even remotely tenable right? Maybe it’s an ugly analogy, and largely missing the secession angle of the whole U.S. civil war.

      • jesus clay — it isn’t meant literally. but the point remains: federal law trumps state law. it isn’t hard to comprehend.

    • I agree with your assessment, Brian but not your pessimism. The sanest and really only thing that will ever resolve it all is to withdraw from the single convention in light of recent medical discoveries.

      The internet is an excellent source of information and our current generation is too sophisticated and educated to ever buy reefer madness lock stock and barrel again.

      Fighting your own population is a losing battle.

      • it isn’t pessimism, it’s reality. outside of the incredibly small number of people like us who actively pay attention, for the vast majority of people the drug war isn’t even on the radar.

        withdrawing from the single convention is the essential first step, but it has nothing to do with medicine either, as opiates, cocaine and even meth are widely available as medicine.

        i’m sorry but for the vast number of Americans, the drug war is not seen as fighting against our own people — like i said, it’s not even on their radar.

    • Windy says:

      You do realize that each of those two States is larger than most European countries?

      • Windy says:

        Well, larger in land area, anyway. Got called away to help my son with something and didn’t get back in time to edit the above comment.

    • darkcycle says:

      We’ll see. Treaties are toilet paper. We break ’em when it suits us. And I DON’T think we’ll be the first to withdraw.
      And you forget, all this is on American soil. All of this action will be in direct contravention of the voter’s expressed wishes. They will need to tread carefully and dance around the courts. I don’t think they want it going there, because the constitutional basis for prohibition has been avoided like the plague.
      It almost sounds as if you’re wishing for the worst, Brian, but I know that’s not true.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        DC, tell me if you find a sucker to take that bet. I want a piece of that action. Of course the US won’t be first. Bolivia has that honor. Perhaps you mean that the U.S. won’t be the second?

        I admit I’m really shocked how seriously some people are treating the single convention treaty. That treatment certainly hasn’t got any of its roots in reality. The U.N. isn’t the boss of us.

      • i’m not “wishing” for anything — just not going to pretend that the feds are just going to stop and say “gee wally, you guys win.” ain’t gonna happen.

        • darkcycle says:

          I know that, Brian. Though no matter how you think it will turn out, it’s a major milestone. And as far as what the Feds are going to do, or not do, we’ll have to see. But we’ve been over the possible permutations here a half dozen times. And no matter how you feel about the folks on the couch, we are pretty savvy social policy analysts.
          My takeaway from all this has been, don’t expect much more than we’re already seeing. They’ll try to block the implementation of Wa.’s scheme any way they can short of taking it to court. And they may go after the bolder businessmen in Colo., but Colorado, with home growing is a really hard piece for them. They DON’T want to try troops in the streets, or large numbers of home raids. The backlash would be huge.
          I know we’re all on the same side, but right now we’re celebrating, and all this’ll come out in the wash. Save the negativity for later. Why don’t we respond to what they do, rather than fret over what they haven’t yet done?

        • darkcycle says:

          Mark Chanen, Brian. That’s the name. Find me on Facebook under another old pseudonym, Curtis Creek. AFAIC, no reason to hide anymore. We should bury the hatchet.

        • Pleased to meet you Mark — I guess you live in WA or CO. How nice for you.

          anyway, i’m not as excited about this as some people may think i’m supposed to be simply because Alaska was actually the first state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. they did it in ’74 and to this day you can grow and smoke your own pot in your own house there.

          it took 38 years for the next domino to fall after Alaska decided that it’s perfectly legal to have up to 25 plants and four ounces of ready to consume weed in your house.

          so why am i supposed to be giddy?

        • darkcycle says:

          Washington, actually. Nobody says you need to be giddy. But there’s no need to poop in the dressing, is there?

    • Rick Steeb says:

      Prohibition IS slavery. That is the whole point. We shall NOT obey.

    • War Vet says:

      Muslim Terrorists have no (or very few) rights in the U.S. and in many other nations. The 1961 U.N. Singles Convention encourages terrorism and is the reason how 9/11 was made possible -thus an act of war, therefore the 1961 U.N. Single Laws are a declaration of war against America (England, Spain, Russia, China, Israel, Philippines etc) via the cause and effect of drug prohibition creating illegal drug money for terrorists to attack us and other nations with: That might be one way to politically and legally rid the Single Convention. Because cops, politicians, judges, DA’s, U.N. diplomats etc know drug prohibition encourages and creates crime and war, we can prove such people are in fact criminals and terrorist sympathizers via their willingness to allow criminals access to legal tender through illegal sales of popular consumer goods (and knowing it –thus proving conspiracy) . . . it would be more logical if drugs were bought and sold with ‘non-legal tender’ -a different currency which would cover the U.N./DOD’s ass -but they are not . . . the U.N. knows they are to blame for 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan etc. through the drug money of the insurgents and terrorists, therefore we could push the issue of them being war criminals who did nothing to stop legal tender or stop the drug laws or 100% stop all the dope/users in the world from financing wars (the inability to stop all the drugs added to not stopping drug prohibition creates the fueling of wars, crime and genocides, which equals out that such human beings who endorse drug prohibition of any kind are akin to terrorist sympathizers –Muslim Terrorists Sympathizers after 9/11 –even if they don’t know it or believe they are at fault –but ignorance is not an excuse to be denied punishment according to the law). The U.S. has backed out of Iraq and Vietnam (and soon the Stan), thus proving a ‘war’ or ‘police action’ can be stopped when it has failed, as opposed to keeping up a failed war/police action -thus putting the blame and burden on the U.N./DOJ for drug dealers making money long after the 1961 U.N. Law. The more people realize that America has spent $3 trillion dollars after 9/11 to fight illegal drugs (its money mostly), the more likely the U.N. Single Act can be dissolved (N.Y. Times, Brown University, DEA, War College, U.N., BBC, PBS etc stats) . . . everybody and their brother knows drugs are the reason why Iraqi’s and Afghanis have bombs and guns -drugs sold today or blowback from Iran-Contra/Russia-Afghanistan War utilizing the drug black market . . . everybody knows drugs are the reason why airline tickets and box cutter knives were bought for 9/11. It’s time to start questioning why we hold (or held) Italian, Russian, Triad and Latin American Mafias in CIA/DOD prisons in Baghdad, Iraq -unless we can assume there is no proof organized crime, let alone drug cartels sell dope. In short, we can prove the U.N.’s Single Convention are Muslim Terrorists Sympathizers if we can prove drugs are sold illegally for cash and if we can prove cash can buy weapons . . . if you push (drug laws) an old lady (society) in the street and she gets killed by a car going 20 over the speed limit –you too are to blame, not just the car (terrorists) who likewise was breaking the law.

      • Opiophiliac says:

        War Vet you may be interested in the following article.
        What’s Wrong With the Taliban-Heroin Narrative: A Chat With Julien Mercille

        The Taliban are players in the Afghan drug trade, but minor ones in relative terms. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is to look at the value of the annual drug trade within Afghanistan, which is about $3 billion. The Taliban capture only about 5 to 10 percent of those profits. The bulk of the profits is appropriated by other groups, such as traffickers, government and police officers, as well as warlords.

        One reason why the Taliban are widely believed to be the main culprits behind the drug trade in Afghanistan is that that’s how they have been depicted in the mainstream media. This contributes to painting an evil picture of the Taliban and insurgents.

    • Tony Aroma says:

      I think it is interesting that the Mexican government has responded before the US. My prediction is the feds will continue as they have with medical mj. They’ve never challenged a state mmj law in court. Instead, they’ve become the American equivalent of the Mexican cartels. Rather than settling their difference with the states in court, they send in their heavily armed gunman to make a point. I think they’ll continue to do the same in CO and WA until someone forces them to stop.

  4. ezrydn says:

    Will the UN change,…….or lose members?

    It ain’t a “back burner” issue any longer. It’s rattling cupboards and shaking tables now.

    • i don’t think so EZ — in the grander scheme of things drug laws are still on the way in the back burners.

      • claygooding says:

        Why would any European country consider being the first in Europe to legalize commercial marijuana when the economies are doing so well without it?

        I think you are ignoring greed,,the very thing that created prohibition,,will be it’s downfall,,

    • Opiophiliac says:


      “Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind…
      Conscious of their duty to prevent and combat this evil…”

      ‘Deliver us from evil’? – The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 50 years on by Rick Lines

      In the context of international treaty law, this wording is notable in that the Single Convention is the only United Nations treaty characterising the activity it seeks to regulate, control or prohibit as being ‘evil’.
      [Conor] Gearty is correct, however, in his recognition that the use of such language is highly unusual. Indeed, the unique nature of the use of the language of ‘evil’ in the Single Convention is particularly glaring when considered alongside that used in other treaties addressing issues that the international community considers abhorrent.
      For example, neither slavery, apartheid nor torture are described as being ‘evil’ in the relevant international conventions that prohibit them. Nuclear war is not described as being ‘evil’ in the treaty that seeks to limit the proliferation of atomic weapons, despite the recognition in the preamble that ‘devastation that would be visited upon all mankind’ by such a conflict.
      The closest one finds to the language contained in the preamble to the Single Convention to describe drugs is that found in international instruments in the context of genocide. For example, in describing the crimes committed during the Second World War, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term ‘barbarous acts’, while the Genocide Convention uses the term ‘odious scourge’.

      I have been dependent (I’m trying my best not to use terms like “addict” or “addiction” as I think these are loaded with false meanings and used by the treatment industry to justify coercion and control of the lives of people who use drugs) on opiates for a long time, more than ten years. I don’t steal, commit acts of violence or any other criminal activities beyond using certain drugs “non-medically” (itself a meaningless term simply implying using a drug in ways not approved by the medical-industrial complex that is the FDA, AMA, DEA, ect). People use drugs for all different reasons so I won’t speculate on why other people use opiates, but for me it’s always been about self-medication. Without going into details let me say that, for me, opiates are a far better mood elevator than conventional treatments offered by doctors and yes I’ve tried many different medications. There is a small but significant percentage of people who only truly feel well on opiates. In case you think we’re all just a bunch of dirty junkies consider that William Steward Halstead, the “father of American surgery” was also a lifelong morphine user, just one of many examples of men and women who accomplished great feats in many different disciplines while also using opiates. As Ethan Nadelmann has said (quoting from memory so may not be verbatim), “Some people take drugs and say they feel normal for the first time in their lives. I’ve only ever heard that reaction from two drugs: prozac and heroin.”

      I have tried methadone which made me quite ill, gaining nearly 100 pounds and experiencing serious cognitive decline. Suboxone is somewhat better, although nowhere near as good as traditional full-agonists like morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl , heroin, ect. And God no I don’t want naltrexone (Vivitrol), which has such side effects as liver toxicity and inability to experience pleasure (anhedonia)! Without a doctor to prescribe, indeed even if I could find such a doctor he/she would be be putting their practice and freedom at risk from the DEA, my choice is between the black market or inferior conventional options. It is true that I could live without opiates, and I have done so for long periods of time (I try not to use terms like “clean” which implies that people who use drugs are “dirty”), but not without experiencing some loss of quality of life. When people use drugs like antidepressants for depression or caffeine to increase alertness we don’t condemn them for inability to “deal with reality.” Why is my particular form of self-medication a “serious evil for the individual” and “fraught with social and economic danger to mankind.”

      The truth is that the convention on narcotic drugs, and all other treaties and policies that support global drug prohibition, are responsible for most of the social and economic danger to mankind caused by drugs. Global drug prohibition is a serious evil that deserves to be compared to slavery and torture, NOT addiction to narcotic drugs. Calling addiction to narcotic drugs an evil justifies the execution, arbitrary incarceration and torture (including the standard “cold-turkey” treatment in jails) of people who use opiates, as long as combating narcotics is seen as being good. I myself have experienced violence at the hands of police simply for being a suspected “drug user.” All in all I would say that I’ve had it much easier (in no small part to being white) than some of my junkie brethren, so many of whom have histories of childhood abuse, neglect and poverty.

      The sooner we can get rid of these archaic and moralistic international treaties the better.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        Mr. Nadelman certainly hasn’t been listening to those of us with broken endo-cannabinoid systems. I used to think my reaction to getting high the first time was unique. That was until last year when I heard Dr. Drew (of all people, sheesh) describe it perfectly. Of course that jack ass decided that it was proof of addiction but when a guy is an expert with a hammer he has the inclination to see all problems as nails. All I can say is that if I’m an addict because of that reaction, then addiction is a desirable condition.

        Prozac in me precipitated a very serious suicide attempt, one which wasn’t born of despair but of feeling compelled. Believe it or not I’ve never tried heroin but the legal opiates I’ve taken made me angry with the world. That included straight morphine after my 2007 surgery when the doctor gave me a PRN machine so I could self titrate the dose. Heroin breaks down into morphine upon metabolization so the effects have to be similar. To this day I regret leaving the nurse who took that machine away just before I was discharged mystified. She was stunned that I used so little. According to her at least half of the lowest use she’d ever seen. Perhaps if I had told her that I brought my own cannabrex and that it did the trick without the anger that accompanied the morphine it could have planted the seed of truth. From my point of view, morphine sucks.

        I quit listening to those people in the early 1990s when the discovery of the endo-cannabinoid system was announced. It was in that moment that I decided that if some clown asked me who I believed, him or my own eyes that I decided it was going to be my own eyes without any question. Oh BTW, that’s not fictional, one of my drug rehab “professionals” actually asked people that question shortly after they joined the group. Yes Mr. Smith, the correct answer is my own eyes, not your bald faced lies.

        • Opiophiliac says:

          One of the problems with methadone is that, in the US at least, what is sold as methadone is really a racemic mixture of two different drugs; L-meth and D-meth. The L-isomer is responsible for most of the opioid effect of methadone. D-meth has little opioid effect and is an antagonist at the NMDA receptor, and in higher doses may have action at many other receptor sites (nicotinic, serotogenic). This is just a hypothesis, but it may be that the inclusion of D-meth may be why methadone is not well tolerated by somewhere between 40-50% of people who try it (and one reason I get upset when the DPA pushes methadone and not true maintenance programs like heroin assisted treatment which “works” for 80-90% of people, but I digress).
          Also methadone is far, far harder to detox from than heroin. I’ve detoxed from methadone twice and heroin (as well as pharmaceutical opiates like OCs) at least a dozen times and would take a H detox over methadone any day.
          You are correct regarding the differing responses to opiates. Dirk Hanson coined the term term metabolic chauvinism, which Maia Szalavitz defines as the idea that “one’s own experience — of a drug, a condition, a cure or sensation — is the same as that of everyone else.” Many people simply find opiates, especially strong doses, adversive causing nausea and no euphoria. Heroin and morphine are very similar, pretty much the same when taken orally as most of the heroin is converted to morphine via first pass metabolism (unless you’re taking a massive dose of oral H which then overwhelms the liver cytochromes). When injected the greater lipophilicity of heroin allows 2-3 molecules of heroin to pass into the brain for each molecule of morphine, which is why H is 2-3 times as potent IV. This is largely responsible for the “rush” associated with heroin, but once it gets into the brain it is rapidly deacetylated to morphine (and 6-acetyl-morphine). In a sense heroin functions as a pro-drug, in vitro studies indicate that heroin by itself has low affinity for the mu opioid receptor and would not be a popular drug if not for this biotransformation. So yes, if you have experience with morphine (esp IV) you have a pretty good idea of what heroin feels like. For that matter opium, which is roughly 10% morphine, is also very similar to heroin, although the other alkaloids in opium do impact the “high”. For example the thujone in opium counteracts the respiratory depression increasing the safety profile of raw opium when compared to pure alkaloids. In fact I have long argued that raw opium should be used in maintenance programs…not that anyone listens to me.
          You’re experience with morphine is also interesting for two reasons; studies indicate that when patients are given control over the opiate dosages they use less opiates than when given regularly scheduled doses by staff and co-administration of cannabis results in less self-administration of opiates for pain relief.
          I can’t stand Dr. Drew and 90% of “treatment professionals” who are committed to a “brain-disease” paradigm of addiction. They play semantic games with concepts like “denial” to get people to question their own experiences and common sense. I could say a lot more, but if addiction is truly a brain disease why is the treatment a pseudo-religious conversion to a 12-step program and submission of will to some ill-defined “higher power”? How successful would this treatment be for true brain diseases, such as MS, epilepsy, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s?

    • War Vet says:

      The Single’s Law will be disolved if not defunct . . . laws that are still on the book but not practiced i.e. it’s illegal to whale hunt in Oklahoma or sleep in a fridge in Washington DC or paint your house red on a Friday kind of illogical laws. Maybe out of the ashes of drug prohibtion, a better U.N. can be made -one that oversees nations whose wars are smaller and less deadlier (if not absent) due to lack of drug money . . . pot legalization creates industrial hemp and nations who profit off of industrial hemp will be more stable and the people will have better economies, education and healthcare and less political corruption, thus encouraging the need for the 1961 Single Laws to be disolved or defunct. When we can show a cause and effect of keeping drugs illegal creates 9/11 etc, then the U.N. will be forced to rid the laws out of fear the U.N. will be disolved because it violates it’s own laws and almost every law in every nation, state and province: slavery, prostitution, kidnapping, genocide, polution, terrorism, war, crime, coruption etc

  5. Servetus says:

    Mark Kleiman has a new piece at Salon where he speculates on the future of marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

    His focus is on state and U.S. federal politics, while not considering the reverberating impact the vote has on the rest of the world, one clearly showing prohibition as a failed political tool.

    Waves of international protest of U.S. drug laws are now set to crest on its shores like some new Frankenstorm.

    Dr. Kleiman is also really, really worried about a minority of ‘chronic’ users of marijuana, those who have what society, in its infinite lack of understanding and tolerance, calls a ‘problem’ in a vain attempt to keep the stereotypes alive.

    • Opiophiliac says:

      Another article on the CO and WA results also by Mark Kleiman, the co-author of “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know.” Discussion of the advantages of the CO law.

      The American Public Is Doing a 180 on Marijuana Prohibition…How Come the Politicians Aren’t?

      While the feds could easily identify a limited number of state-licensed growers and retail outlets and shut them down with injunctions or with threats of arrest and property confiscation, identifying and cracking down on an unknown number of unlicensed home-growers would be next to impossible. So Colorado’s voters may well have let the genie out of the bottle in a way that no federal action can now reverse.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I do believe that one day we’ll see Prof. Kleiman sitting on our side of the table. Slowly but surely he’s figuring it out and I do believe that the truth is important to him.

      • Freeman says:

        He’s got it figured out — which side of his bread is buttered, that is. He’s got to tell his audience something they want to hear. Some of his audience is us, some of it is the government.

  6. kaptinemo says:

    Like a rock thrown into a pond, the resulting ripples of Tuesday’s votes for re-legalization are expanding outwards in ALL directions, not just nationally.

    We have only just begun to get an idea of the depth and breadth of these decisions. The ramifications are truly awesome in scope, and will have reverberations for years. But one thing is very clear:

    The 75 years long War on Cannabis has received a vote of no confidence by those for whom it was ostensibly waged.

    The peddlers of prohibition have just been told “No thanks; not interested”. And if they don’t listen, be it through simple inertia of thinking that vote was an aberration (I’m waiting for some idiot prohib to insult the public by saying it was duped, like the prohibs did when CA passed Prop215) and try to bluster their way past the polite objection, the result will only be an angry “GTFO!” followed by demands to cut anti-drugs bureaucracy budgets in retaliation for civil servant thick-headedness.

    For once, they are afraid. For once, they are having to choose their path very carefully. Because they are now in a position to step on the myriad landmines they placed in OUR path.

    Everything they’ve done for the past 40 years, every single act taken against the rights and liberties of the electorate, can now be used against them if they kick up any kind of fuss.

    For example: the Feds are considering taking WA and CO to court over their ending cannabis prohibition (and incidentally attempt to nullify the votes of the electorate, and thus void democracy, itself?)

    Then let’s enter into evidence the the entire sordid history of cannabis prohibition. Everything, including the ugly racist aspects from which it was derived. Somehow, I doubt that would go over well with our minorities.

    Any way they stir the pot the Feds get splashed with brown, smelly stuff.

    The prohibs are now left with juggling buckets of nitro while trying to negotiate that minefield. Any wonder why they’ve been so quiet?

    • Cliff says:

      “For example: the Feds are considering taking WA and CO to court over their ending cannabis prohibition (and incidentally attempt to nullify the votes of the electorate, and thus void democracy, itself?)”

      Note that the Colorado law is now an Amendment (64) to our State Constitution, not just a statute. Any action against the Colorado law will not only be an affront to democracy, it will overturn a legal amendment to a state constitution. This will be more than just getting a vote of the people negated, it will be a contitutional crisis, plus what all the good Kaptinemo so articulately stated.

      Sorry Brian, I disagree with your slavery take. We are taking a stand FOR FREEDOM & LIBERTY (yeah, I shouted) not to further the enslavement of people.

  7. ezrydn says:

    While we found a way around the logjam, we now face the chore of removing the logs.

    Watched an old movie today. “Wild in the Streets.” Remember the songs “14 or Fight” and “52%?”

  8. Peter says:

    Headless chicken time at the DOJ:

    “A spokesman for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said during Friday’s talks, state officials asked Holder for the federal government’s response to the marijuana vote but didn’t get one.

    The Colorado officials “emphasized the need for the federal government to articulate what its position will be. … Everyone shared a sense of urgency and agreed to continue talking about the issue,” spokesman Eric Brown wrote in an email. No date for further talks was announced, he said.”

    • claygooding says:

      Yeah,,I caught that off FB just now,,they are watching the worlds reaction as much as they are ours,,a decision to prosecute or persecute WA or CO would fall flatter than a pancake if 3 or 4 countries move towards legalization.

  9. Duncan20903 says:


    Some people are arguing that the excise tax in Colorado’s Amendment 64 can’t be implemented because the language in the newly implemented law violates the State’s “taxpayer bill of rights.” We’re getting into some serious legal arcana but as far as I can tell Colorado’s Attorney General is correct.


  10. http://t.co/4KtQV0PF
    Should we not legalize recreational use of Cannabis?
    Times of India

    The world is listening and watching – they know too.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      They really do have a different standard of producing the news in other countries. I can’t imagine a MSM outlet in the United States mentioning the the report from the Indian Hemp Commission but there it is in the Times of India.

  11. The Untied States of America will not continue to look like the United States of America to the rest of the world if they begin to take an adversarial path from here on out with the US voting population.

  12. Colorado Reps. DeGette, Perlmutter And Polis Seek State Exemption From Federal Pot Prohibition Laws


    Congressional staffers told the Independent that Colorado Reps Diana DeGette (CD1), Ed Perlmutter (CD7) and Jared Polis (CD2) are working independently and together on bills that would exempt states where pot has been legalized from the Controlled Substances Act.

  13. The joint campaign says:

    “Since 1961, the US has been campaigning for a global law against all drugs, both hard and soft. Given that ganja, charas and bhang were a way of life in India, we opposed the drastic measure. But by the early ’80s, American society was grappling with some drug problems and opinion had grown against the “excesses” of the hippie generation. In 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government buckled under the pressure and enacted a law called the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

    It was a poor law that clubbed marijuana, hashish and bhang with hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and crack, and banned them all. The minimum punishment for violation of the NDPS Act was 10 years of jail (it has since been relaxed and the crackdown on marijuana has eased somewhat). What happened as a result of this law was that almost overnight the entire trade shifted from peddling grass or charas to smack or worse. This was because while the risk was the same, profits from the hard-killer drugs were ten times higher.

    And suddenly, there was a drugs problem in India. In cities like Delhi, for instance, smack addiction grew. The addicts were mostly poor people – those who had earlier smoked grass were now ‘chasing’ smack. Newspapers reported cases of men selling off all household goods to get money for a fix. What is significant is that instances of deviant behaviour were rare when marijuana, hashish and bhang were legal. The poorly thought-out NDPS Act had actually created a drugs problem where there was none.

    Twenty seven years later, now that some American states have “shown the way”, it is time to revisit the ban. When ganja, charas and bhang don’t have obvious medical negatives and don’t lead to addiction or violent behaviour (which alcohol may be accused of doing), why then should it not be legal as it was in India for centuries? Especially, when there is no social or cultural rejection of them. On the contrary, it is a way of life in our country. Poorly thought-out laws lead to corruption and the harassment of ordinary people. It also tells on the health of the nation. Instead, the NDPS Act should be amended and soft drugs such as ganja, charas and bhang should be made legal.”

    Times Of India

  14. n.t. greene says:

    The battle may have just begun, but the victor has already been decided.

    I think if they fail to strike these votes down entirely, that bill about exempting these states from the CSA will pass… if silently. From there, we will likely see other states pass bills via their legislature. No need to put it to a vote in states that already strongly favor the idea (like here in MA). There will come a day where the CSA will be the empty, impotent thing it deserves to be. It may not go away entirely, but there will be no force behind it at all.

  15. darkcycle says:

    Nails in the coffin. Nails in the coffin.

  16. Opiophiliac says:

    A (possible) sign of the times?

    Legal Weed: Marijuana More Popular Than Barack Obama In Colorado

    In Colorado, weed is more popular than President Barack Obama.

    More people voted for Amendment 64 — which legalizes and regulates recreational use of marijuana — than voted for the president.

    As of Thursday morning, with 100 percent of precincts reporting their results, 1,291,771 votes in favor of Amendment 64 had been tallied. Obama received 1,238,490 votes, 53,281 fewer than the amendment.

    • Cliff says:

      You gotta admit, that 55% – 45% is a pretty clear cut majority. No way to spin that. It is definitely what it is. It is funny that maybe the local Libertarians put cannabis over the top against Obama. ;0)

  17. allan says:

    Dang, frame that and hang it on the wall!

    As of Thursday morning, with 100 percent of precincts reporting their results, 1,291,771 votes in favor of Amendment 64 had been tallied. Obama received 1,238,490 votes, 53,281 fewer than the amendment.

    And it’s one fine “nanner nanner!” to boot.


    • kaptinemo says:

      Considering Obama’s smirking condescension during the Town Halls, concerning ‘people on the Internet’ wanting drug law reform, I imagine that statistic will prove rankling to his fellow Democrats…who’ve been given the same warning that that statistic implies, too:


      The Sleeping Giant the pols and bureaucrats abused for decades, the one that encompasses almost every demographic there is, the one the pols ignorantly, stupidly thought they could malign forever, has finally awakened…and it’s only just begun to show its’ anger at the voting booth.

      And as to our anthem? Our marching song and battle cry? How about this?

      No, pols, we’re truly NOT gonna take this, anymore…

  18. Duncan20903 says:


    I do feel compelled to say that I’m surprised and disappointed just how many people think that the Feds are going to take any action. It’s disappointing to me because it demonstrates just how few people grasp how our system of dual sovereignty works, or how the Feds see medicinal cannabis patient protection laws as being identical to the newly adopted Colorado and Washington State laws. Also that it’s going to be at least 5 years before I can say I told you so. Yes, I am that petty.

  19. Byddaf yn egluro: says:

    It sure looks like Linda’s found another lost cause:

  20. Peter says:

    Excellent article by Eugene Jarecki in the Guardian. Somewhat let down by a horde of comments from supporters of prohibition (so much for the stereotype of liberal guardian readers). The general theme seems to be that the “suppliers are not going to change,” as if it’s cast in stone that cannabis will always be supplied by the same criminal gangs, prohibition not withstanding. Once again they are confusing the damage caused by prohibition with the consequences of drug consumption.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      We wouldn’t have the problem that we do with prohibition if the prohibasites were able to differentiate between problems caused by the law and problems caused by use. They say they don’t like dealers, but they’re willing to decriminalize small amounts which require people go to a dealer to obtain. They don’t like dealers but are willing to prosecute those who grow a couple of plants as if they were dealers. Continuity and consistency have never been the long suits of the prohibitionist parasite.

      Another problem that contributes to this is that it very much appears that the prohibasites think that one man’s bud is identical to every other man’s bud. The Mexicans aren’t going to take any market share unless they learn how to produce quality. I know that they used to know how to do that. Acapulco Gold and Oaxacan blonde were among my favorites back in the late 1970s/early 1980s though they never managed to match the quality of the Panama Red. I’m still searchin’ all the joints in town indeed. Also wondering where the heck to find pot that’s orders of magnitude better than even the lowest quality of those 3 examples. Oh, don’t let me forget to mention the fine Columbian Gold.

      • Peter says:

        I’ve been wondering when US growers will start producing high quality hashish…perhaps some of the Afghan war asylum seekers will find jobs in northern CA

        • divadab says:

          When we can grow 5 acres at a time and high-grade the resin, and feed the rest to the pigs.

          Check out how those tribal guys make hashish sometime – it’s not efficient but then again they don;t need to be because they have lots of supply.

        • claygooding says:

          I could sit and beat buds on a silk screen a lot easier than running through fields in a chamois wrap and then scraping the leather of all the collected dust from the plants,,but being able to rub buds between your hands and making palm hash would be awesome.

  21. allan says:

    Droop Dogg in Oz:

    Barack Obama’s drugs tsar Gil Kerlikowske says cops can’t beat the curse

    Former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske told The Australian that after 40 years and $US1 trillion in government spending, the war on drugs was no more than a “bumper sticker”.

    “We are not at war with people and the war metaphor is so inapplicable to the drug issue, which is so complex,” he said.

  22. Steve says:

    What is the down side to abrogation of the Single Convention? It can apparently be abrogated in fairly short order, but I hardly ever see promotion of such a move take center stage.

    Is there some organization whose emphasis is promotion of the idea that the Single Conventions should be abrogated? What am I missing?

    • claygooding says:

      Steve,your missing that the US was the driving force behind getting the Single Treaty enacted in the UN and the yearly drug war funding through the ONDCP that hands out millions of dollars to countries that are willing to let the US drug warriors play in their countries,,play translated into 60,000 dead in Mexico the last 5 years and untold numbers that have died in the last 20 years in the cocaine wars in Bolivia and other countries in South America.

      • Steve says:

        Oh, I haven’t missed any of that.

      • claygooding says:

        Perhaps then it is the six month written notice requirement,,which gives the US State department time to cut the necessary check to “buy” any country threatening to drop from the treaty,,sometimes the SD will threaten with trade sanctions and other political influences but so far they have managed to buy back the support to keep the treaty in place but it is getting more expensive(see ONDCP budget increased by 33% this budget)every year.

        If the 2014 budget follows at the present growth rate the ONDCP budget will approach 50 billion and a lot of that goes to drug police agencies all over the world,,so much so that those countries now depend on that grant money and their entire police budget and probably half that country’s politicians benefit…quit the treaty and lose the money.

        • Duncan20903 says:


          I had 6 months stuck in my head too. But that can’t be correct correct because we didn’t know that Bolivia was going to withdraw until shortly before it happened. We knew that they were intent on doing so in March of 2011 and think that this blog entry would have been different had they actually filed the formal withdrawal at the time. Bolivia withdrew from the treaty as of 7/1/2011.

          I noticed that the Uruguayan intention to move away from prohibition was also mentioned in the 3/25/2011 blog entry linked above. Here I thought that was only known a few months ago. Christ it can be hard to keep track of all the moving parts of prohibition and I’m obsessed with the issue. Think how futile it must be for people who don’t really care one way or the other.

        • claygooding says:

          I know,,it would be nice if the UN reported to the public when any country filed to withdraw but I am sure only the ONDCP and fellow drug czars get that info,,and the State Dept.

  23. Duncan20903 says:

    I keep thinking about the prohibitionists, and I just can’t get this damn song out of my head. Does he really say “reefer” at 3:08? Hit the Road Jack

  24. Peter says:

    Great timing St. Pete, FL. Do they have any idea how ridiculous they look, this week of all weeks:

    “This is exactly what I wanted,’ city council member Karl Nurse told Fox13 News in Tampa. ‘It’s high profile enough you put it in a drug location or a prostitution location and it will discourage the customers from coming. They’ll just keep moving.'”


  25. claygooding says:

    makes me wanna dance around in a cheeseburgler suit humming “lovin it”

  26. Here is my comment to CNN’s article on “The Highs and lows of using marijuana”:



    “Here is something interesting. Government studies don’t match recent years private studies. The “lows”, as the title of the article says, are generated propaganda exaggerated out of all proportion by the Government’s agenda’s and funds. Our system of drug controls are set up to ensure marijuana is never allowed, despite scientific evidence (which was never supposed to have gotten loose from the Governments corral).

    The fact that marijuana became illegal in the first place based on lies and bigotry should be sufficient enough reason to dismiss our Governments entire unfactual position on the issue of marijuana.

    I have worked in the substance abuse field. You can’t treat and help individuals with lies and bigotry.”

    I think we are all being too nice. We have all been living a Government lie. Thank you for your site, Pete. I think my head might have exploded by now without an outlet dealing with this absolutely insane amount of lies, exaggerations and blatant propaganda. Seeing more of Kevin’s garbage lies made my night.

  27. Peter says:

    For some reason I keep thinking about that guy from the DEA a few weeks ago who started talking about “reparations” when the US overturns his life’s work and legalizes. Turned out he meant reparations for the DEA staff as compensation for being on the wrong side of history. These people are seriously delusional. A lot of people would send them to jail as war criminals instead.

  28. Well, they are just doing their job.

    Just like the Nuremberg crew.

  29. Byddaf yn egluro: says:

    Former and present Prohibitionists shall not be allowed to remain untainted and untouched by the unconscionable acts that they have viciously committed on their fellow citizens. They have provided us with neither safe communities nor safe streets. We will provide them with neither a safe haven to enjoy their ill-gotten gains nor the liberty to repeat such a similar atrocity.

Comments are closed.