Looking for a… good prohibition film

I know, I know.

I have a friend who teaches at-risk youth and she’d really like to show them the “Breaking the Taboo” film, but it would be better if she could also show a film with a different perspective and turn it into a writing assignment.

Any suggestions? Obviously, I don’t think we’re going to find one as good as Breaking the Taboo, but I don’t want to insult them with anything obviously stupid (no Reefer Madness, or that bizarre Church Lady parody, etc.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Looking for a… good prohibition film

  1. allan says:

    gosh… ummm… anti-drug films? Not a genre I’ve explored.

    That said, Google took me here:


    glimpsing thru the other google blurbs it brings attention to the obvious – there just aren’t top-quality anti-drug films.

    Perhaps if your teacher friend really wants to scare the crap out of her young charges, Midnight Express would definitely be an option.

    • Francis says:

      I think we have to distinguish between anti-drug films and pro-prohibition films. A film can present the dangers of a particular drug without advocating for its prohibition. For example, we wouldn’t assume that a documentary on alcoholism is attempting to bring back alcohol prohibition, would we? (Heck, I wouldn’t even necessarily call such a film anti-alcohol.) To think otherwise is to fall into the prohibitionists’ trap. According to them, “is this drug ‘dangerous’?” (i.e., does its use have certain risks?) is the only question that needs to be answered affirmatively in order to criminalize it. In fact, it’s not even the first.

      It sounds like Pete is looking for films that affirmatively make the case for drug prohibition. I’m not aware of any.

      • allan says:

        aye Francis… you’re right of course. I might be one of those paranoids Charlie Savage mentioned. My first impulse is to look for what today’s Prohibs like Calvina, Darth Voth, MsLinda and them folks would promote.

        And perhaps because there are no pro-Prohib films (and here I’ll echo the there can’t be any sentiment) I drifted to anti-drug. And I will admit to thinking that there HAD to be some nutbag (re names above) that tried to do a pro-Prohibition documentary.

        The old Elliot Ness TV show comes to mind on the fiction side… there has to be something, maybe a network run PR piece from the drug warriors… you know, about how well the DEA and friends are doing.

        Maybe if I write a note to Gil, he’ll know.

        Dear Mr Drug Czar,

        I was sitting around with some friends and we wanted to view a film that shows the real side of the drug war. The work that the Coast Guard, the DEA and all the other government agencies’ efforts to control the scourge of illegal drugs is important and we thought if we could find a good film, we’d share it with our friends. Maybe even tie it into one of our school projects.

        So any recommendation you could make would be appreciated.

        Thank you sir, we look forward to hearing from you. Just because Prohibition hasn’t ever worked before in the history of humans doesn’t mean the greatest nation ever in the universe can’t do it!

        Porgy Tirebiter (and Mudhen!)
        More Science High

  2. Tony Aroma says:

    I think Reefer Madness actually pretty accurately portrays the Prohibitionist’s rationale. I wouldn’t be surprised if many believe it to be essentially factual.

  3. Matthew Meyer says:

    I wouldn’t say its an anti-drug film, but Black Tar Heroin shows what is often assumed to be the “other side” of legalization arguments–people apparently ravaged by their drug use.

    Part of the health risk of the homeless junkies shown in the film comes from prohibition, which is what makes it not the “other side” of reform discourse at all. All the same, it’s a lot different kind of film from Taboo and may be useful.

    • Opiophiliac says:

      I haven’t seen “black tar heroin” but if its anything like other “anti-drug” films, they never separate the harms of prohibition from the harms of the drug. I can’t even say how many “documentaries” about heroin and prescription opioids blame the high cost of maintaining a habit and the associated acquisitive crime on the drugs themselves. As if opiates made anyone steal/sell their possessions/become homeless. In the 19th century there were no “skid row” opiate addicts, or if there were the opiate use was only incidental to their lifestyle. The highest rates of opiate use was among middle class white woman.
      As for the use of syringes, well, when something is literally worth more in weight than gold people will try to find ways to maximize bioavailability. This is not the only reason why people inject their drugs, but it is a major one. Imagine if tobacco was made illegal, cartels would begin extracting the nicotine from the leaves and offering concentrated forms suitable for injection. People would OD and die, or contract blood-born diseases. People would commit crimes to finance their nicotine habits and police would be arresting tobacco peddlers and tobacco-addicted prostitutes. When tobacco was first introduced to Europe it was worth its weight in silver. Entire fortunes were spent on tobacco.

      • Matthew Meyer says:

        It’s a good film, Opio. I’d love to hear what you think after watching it.

        Nice point about syringes. We can also, however, view them as historical innovations driven by the quest for isolation and purification that typifies “modern” medicine.

        • Opiophiliac says:

          I saw that it’s on youtube, when I get around to watching it I’ll write about it here.
          Syringes were absolutely developed for their clinical purposes, to deliver a drug into the bloodstream as quickly and efficiently as possible.
          They are used to maximize bioavailability, speed the drug effects (important for acute pain) and deliver drugs that cannot be administered by other means.
          However the ritual of injection itself plays a part in some addictions that go beyond the pharmacological properties of pharmacokinetics. For example there are case histories of people becoming addicted to injections of saline.

      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry but I have to disagree with bioavailability being a predominant reason for injection. As a long term addict, me and every other addict who injects all attribute it to the rush (the first few seconds).

        This should be even more apparent with the vast numbers of people who inject oxycodone; given its oral bioavailability there’s very little gain by injecting it, yet it’s still done very frequently: for the rush.

        See also cocaine; when you inject it, it lasts for maybe 5 minutes.

        People don’t do it to get the most out of their supply. And people who’ve never done it nearly without exception don’t appreciate how much more intense the rush is and why that’s all that matters to people taking it for pleasure.

        But I do agree with most of the harm coming from consequences of prohibition rather than the drug itself. I like to bring up cancer patients… they’re physically dependent on huge doses of opiates, but their supply is affordable through insurance and availability is not really an issue. Why don’t they turn into depraved zombies lying in gutters? Because whether you’re trying to feel normal or feel good– motivation for taking it– is what matters? Nope.

        • Opiophiliac says:

          I respectfully disagree with your analysis of injection vis-a-vis bioavailability. For some drugs, like morphine which has low oral bioavailability, or heroin which undergoes extensive first pass metabolism, I think the greater bioavailability of injection is a major contributing factor. Even if the user is not aware of this pharmacological concept. It is true this is less of a factor for drugs like oxy which have good oral bioavailability. But even with oxycodone, when you’re paying up to a dollar a mg pushing the bioavailability from 80% to closer to 100% is significant, especially when you figure the cumulative effect over months or years.

          The determinants of the “rush” are how rapidly the drug reaches the brain and in what concentration. If a rush is what you are going for you can smoke your drugs and attain basically the same effect without using a syringe. I didn’t think it was possible to smoke a pill on tinfoil, but I have seen it in action (30mg oxycodone).
          The pharmacokinetics of smoked freebase cocaine (crack) is very similar to intraveinous cocaine. If its the rush you’re after, why go to the trouble of injections when smoking a fat rock gets you a very similar effect. On the other hand the heat required to vaporize the drug also destroys a lot of it. High heat is not necessary for prepping an injection.

          And as I said before the ritual of injection also plays a big part of the whole drug experience.

          I agree with everything else you said about people on high doses of opiates who don’t have to worry about prohibition (like cancer patients). As long as the supply is not interrupted and the cost is affordable, you can live a completely normal life even on extraordinarily high dosages.

  4. Steve Finlay says:

    There are different perspectives other than the prohibitionist perspective. “Waiting to Inhale” comes from a medical viewpoint, and “Damage Done” is mainly about LEAP members and how their views changed.

  5. War Vet says:

    What about any 9/11 Docs -logic dictates based on various fact sheets we can read from the DEA, CIA, U.N., Time, U.K. Guardian, PBS, BBC, Al Jazerra, NY Times, Huffington Post, Zurich Institute etc: 9/11 happened because drugs are illegal . . . it’s very hard to buy a $35 dollar hat with only $10 bucks to your name . . . 9/11 would have been a financial impossibility without dope money (considering all the cash Al Qaeda used in North Africa, War torn Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Philippines and Afghanistan in the 80’s and 90’s). What about any documentaries that talk about how we are required by Federal law (‘Gas Land’) to use Natural Gas and Petrol as a means of fuel, since we cannot use hemp fuel -we cannot use hemp fuel (and cleaner hemp products), therefore Water is considered a flammable and often undrinkable (from natural sources) substance in many areas of the world due to Natural Gas and petrol being used more than hempoline etc. What about the John Cusack movie, ‘War Inc’ . . . logic dictates our nation will further walk on Muslim Lands because drug money in the hands of militants gives us an excuse (and legal right away after 9/11) to wage war and to wage ‘private contractor’ wars as seen by KBR, DynCorp, Halliburton, Black Water etc. Are there really any ‘anti-drug’ movies that says it’s OK to keep someone from legally doing heroin or pot at the cost of killing a few thousand of our own and other people per cause and effect of the ‘war on drugs’. What about any current docs about the Occupy Wall Street scene: drugs are illegal, which keeps millions of hemp jobs illegal for decades at a time, thus causing us to lose out on trillions in revenue (over 50+ yrs), encouraging us to outsource jobs in the synthetics industry (petrol and petrol plastics etc) . . . drugs being illegal creating the financial backing of terrorists, thus sending us to a $3 trillion dollar war (Brown University, NY Time reports) that has caused huge strains on our economy, thus encouraging our 2008 Recession and Occupy Wall Street movement. It’s not logical to find an ‘anti-drug’ movie unless we can justify: little Sally will never have access to legal heroin (because it might be bad for her) at the cost of causing thousands of American, Canadian, European families to be without jobs and homes and thousands of troops killed and a war in Mexico etc (you better give me some butter –I’m on a Roll).

  6. http://youtu.be/HFsLhteSHak

    Here is a good documentary of the conditions in Afganistan with a slant on the children addicted to heroin.

    • Prohibition is stupid. I don’t think its possible to show them one without insulting their intelligence.

    • My apologies to Tommy, but a good one would be any of the Cheech and Chong movies.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        I’ve got to admit that pot that turned people into lizards in Nice Dreams that was grown by the mad scientist in the swimming pool converted into a grow lab was scary. But really, that was just make believe even if the prohibitionists do still believe that it isn’t. It’s really not very hard to fool a prohibitionist.

  7. darkcycle says:

    There aren’t any good films making a case for something that a good case can’t be made for. If they had a valid argument, we would be taught it like a mantra starting in preschool.
    They have traditionally relied on a compliant press to take care of their propaganda since Anslinger and Hearst. Reefer Madness was a low budget Hollywood production. It was only one of an entire genre of shock-schlock films made in the early years of Hollywood. Walters inserted anti-drug story lines into bad sitcoms.
    They have no side to present, so they (wisely) haven’t gone there.

  8. Prohibition is nothing but a failure on the part of everyone in confronting the real problems connected to taking drugs.

    Prohibition is a get rich scheme.

  9. I hope you don’t mind if I throw a couple pennies in here. There really is nothing pleasant about the darker side that is connected to being addicted to a drug. Its own sheer shock value is enough to turn anyone away in disgust. Drugs can be a tool in the hands of a doctor. It can be a tool in the hands of a patient or anyone for that matter.

    Used unwisely, ex-lax can be a horror story. Any drug.

    A drug in the hands of the Government or in the hands of criminals alone are both equally as bad.

    No one will ever get rich off of treating drug addicted people otherwise. Without prohibition that is. If one really, really looks, no one during prohibition makes any money off of it unless they are in the Government or they are in the black market operating as crooks. During prohibition you cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys apart from each other. They are both too busy getting rich.

    The people that actually are serious about helping others during prohibition are soon long sidetracked by the money. Absolute power brings about greed and corruption: case in point would be DuPont.

    Making a case for prohibition is impossible unless you are a government or a crook.

  10. Now we have artificial entities called corporations, posing as individuals, but are really Government shills. Now we have a third party involved. It begins to get complicated beyond what we have seen the past prohibitions. The result of it having gone on too long, I suspect.

    Time to end the war on drugs and our current era of prohibition, lest we all perish in the “cure”.

    1984 might have came and went, but I say it is right around the corner in a very real way.

    • (pacing around in front of the couch)

      Sorry for talking too much–gtg to the can. Brb.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        That’s absurd, corporations have been around for centuries and they’ve been considered stand alone entities for just as long. Why not take a few minutes and examine the etiology of the word corporation?

        I wonder if the people who object to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling would have really enjoyed watching Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol (Mason Tvert’s dog and pony show) and New Approach Washington (Alison Holcomb) shut down in September. That is what would have happened. Did you understand that both of those organizations were fictional entities?

        Freedom is a two way street my friend. You can’t step on the freedom of others without denigrating your own.

        • I guess what I had on my mind is the drug testing industry, Duncan. I can’t indict all of corporate America.

          There are others. Common sense often gives way to corporate profit.

          Then there is the CCA. Corrections Corporation of America.

        • These are all government created and supported businesses who would not exist without their (congressional,etc.) funds and support.

  11. Opiophiliac says:


    This is a 2007 Documentary by Kevin Booth. He also has another one specific to marijuana called “How Weed Won the West”.

    The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country endure? Inspired by the death of four family members from “legal drugs” Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth sets out to discover why the Drug War has become such a big failure. Three and a half years in the making the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA. AMERICAN DRUG WAR shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just dope fiends but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it. Written by Kevin Booth [from IMDB link]

    For an amusing drug film from 1916 see The Mystery of the Leaping Fish

    Coke Ennyday, the scientific detective, divides his own time in periods for “Sleep”, “Eat”, “Dope” and “Drink”. In fact he’s used to overcome every situation with drugs: consuming it to increase his energies or injecting it in his opponents to KO them. To help the police he discovers a contraband of opium (which he eagerly tastes) transported with “Leaping Fishes”, and the blackmail of a mysterious man who wants to marry the “fish blower” girl. Will Coke be able to free the girl?
    [from IMDB link]

  12. claygooding says:

    I think any of the early Popeye cartoons,when Popeye was slapping the shit out of Olive Oil and Wimpy and cutting jokes with Brutus would make a good lead off into the two films she chooses,,,they were made about the time alcohol prohibition was winding down and hemp prohibition was rising,IIRC.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I’ve read some people waxing theoretical who claim that Popeye’s spinach was actually cannabis. He did do some very impressive tricks with his pipe including sucking the spinach out of the can just before kicking ass and taking names.

      Popeye was a rollin’ stoner

      During the 1920s and ’30s, the era when Popeye was created, “spinach” was a very common code word for marijuana. One classic example is “The Spinach Song,” recorded in 1938 by the popular jazz band Julia Lee and Her Boyfriends. Performed for years in clubs thick with cannabis smoke, along with other Julia Lee hits like “Sweet Marijuana,” the popular song used spinach as an obvious metaphor for pot.

      In addition, anti-marijuana propaganda of the time claimed that marijuana use induced super-strength. Overblown media reports proclaimed that pot smokers became extraordinarily strong, and even immune to bullets. So tying in Popeye’s mighty strength with his sucking back some spinach would have seemed like an obvious cannabis connection at the time.

      ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-

      Julia Lee – I Didn’t Like It The First Time
      It appears that the official name of the song isn’t The Spinach Song.

    • claygooding says:

      Does anyone remember the silent Adam and Eve movie,,the original prohibition would show that it still doesn’t work.

  13. Peter says:

    How about the fake rasta DARE officer shooting himself in the foot? This is appropriate on so many levels…


    • Duncan20903 says:


      How about that cop that accidentally took home some evidence, had his wife make some ABT brownies and then called 911 because he was so stoned that he thought he and his wife were going to die?
      Yet another stupid cop trick

      I think you’ve just got to love how they sent in SWAT at the end of the video.

    • Irie says:

      Me ras, bloodcloth, ‘im didn’t do enough damage with the first gun, no, ‘im has to get nother gun, maybe the dreadlook can shoot somebody else in the room, didn’t finish watching it, was ras cloth laughing too hard!

    • drwoo says:

      That was just perfect after my wake n bake. This is a quote brought to you by that dumb ass dare officer to the kids, “and now I’ll probably never get to show guns again”.

      Thanks for the tears Peter.

    • Peter says:

      Not one piece of evidence that Cockburn jr’s schizophrenia was “caused” by cannabis rather than coinciding with it.
      “In response, a group called Save Our Society From Drugs, has said, ‘Many concerned citizens, community groups, law enforcement agencies and elected officials are concerned how these laws will impact their [jobs and incomes]'”

      • Duncan20903 says:


        The really sad thing is how flippin’ simple it is to prove that cannabis isn’t a causal factor for schizophrenia but still people fall for that nonsense.

        So why aren’t the Rastafarians suffering a significantly higher rate of schizophrenia than the general population?

        ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-

        You know, I don’t think that [Satan in human form] contributed even one shiny dime to any of the 2012 ballot initiatives.

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

        • Irie says:

          Good find Duncan, I lived in Jamaica for a number of years, my husband is Jamaican, I was in the dive industry (managed and was an instructor at a shop on the beach of Negril) also ran a Bed and Breakfast on the cliffs,so I interacted with the Jamaican people a lot,am not certified to analyze cases of schizophrenia, but can tell you first hand, in all my travels on the island, seen poverty in many rampant ways, namely a few homeless people, but have to tell you, the one town, ‘nutjob’ so to speak, that people would call “sick in the head” was like this from birth, so never saw any one become schizophrenia because of smoking ganga, and I saw ALOT of ganga and rastas and other tourists that smoked, never seen anyone put down a spliff and run screaming into the bush, never, never even heard of that kind of thing happening!

    • Jon Doe says:

      Oh that boogie man George Soros. In another time and place they’d probably just call him “The Jew”.

  14. Dante says:

    How about:

    A Day in the Death of Donnie B

  15. Freeman says:

    O.T., but I figure my couch-mates will find it interesting.

    Mark Kleiman’s at it again, claiming that anyone who discusses marijuana legalization without stressing that “pot dependency is a real problem or that a large share of the current market involves sales to people with drug problems and to minors” is in denial due to their polarization. You know what? Caffeine dependency can be accurately described as a real problem (how many people do you know who self-report that they can’t properly function in the morning without it) and a large share of the current market involves sales to people with drug problems and to minors too, but I don’t see him mention that much. In fact, never.

    He tried to slap Pete around in comments for not caring enough that some reporter had inadvertently appeared to have misrepresented another researcher’s conclusions when Pete pointed out that the focus on that was a deliberate, irrelevant distraction. As you would expect, Pete held his own and then some.

    Pete FTW: It would be like requiring same-sex marriage advocates to discuss the potential changes in AIDS in the population if gay marriage is legalized, or women’s rights advocates to know the future ramifications of family life if women are allowed in the workforce, or abolitionists to know what would happen with criminal rates for African Americans. Focusing on those facts is a barrier to effective change of destructive policy.

    The researcher and reporter in question sorted out the misunderstanding in later comments very politely, and M.A.R.K. came out smelling like skunk cabbage after petulantly accusing several commenters there of bad faith arguments in denial of facts and then getting scolded by the reporter for criticizing him in bad faith: “That said, it would have been far more civil for either or both of you to have brought this to my attention directly _before_ resorting to name calling in this forum.“.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I find the “in denial” stuff to be truly amusing. I mean like a train wreck can be amusing. How does it work again? Oh right, if I disagree with someone it proves their assertion. If someone accuses me of being an armadillo and I deny it, it proves that I am an armadillo??

      • Freeman says:

        Heh, back in consensus reality, the estimate of the average IQ of academic prohibition apologists ranges in the low double-digits. I need provide no evidence for this claim. If Prof. Kleiman disputes it, he’s just in denial because of his polarization as an academic prohibition apologist!

    • claygooding says:

      I don’t think some reporters realize how much anger is building on this issue,,and Mark Kleiman has earned every bit of the anger many have developed from his support of keeping prohibition in place,in some form or another.

    • allan says:

      hmmm… interesting read (the comments I mean, not Kleiman):

      “Further, given a choice between people pissing their lives away in freedom, and pissing their lives away in prison, is this a difficult choice?” – Brett Bellmore

      ok, I had to leave my $.02 too. Thanks for that link Freeman!

      • Freeman says:

        Yeah, Brett’s a right-leaning libertarian type and as such he gets a lot of flack over there at the lefty RBC. I’ve given him my share of flack as well when he’s taken to repeating talking points coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. But at times, he’s been sharp as a tack, and the comment you quoted is a great example of that.

        I’m going to head on over there now and check out your comments. Plus I’m curious to see if Mr. Everybody Else Lets Their Biases Into Their Analyses But Me has bothered to show evidence for his outlandish claim: “Back in consensus reality, the estimate of people who *self-report* that their cannabis use is seriously messing with their lives is roughly 3 million” after being challenged on that claim by several other commenters. Based on my previous experiences over there, I’m going to guess not. M.A.R.K. has a habit of making wild claims and then abandoning the comment section when challenged on them. I’m going to guess that he’ll bury this article in a flurry of new posts today in order to get it off the front page.

      • Freeman says:

        Just read your comment over there. Very well done!

      • Duncan20903 says:


        Well I do have to admit that I’ve likely been wrong about Prof. Kleiman. I really do try to see the positives in everyone but it does appear that I hallucinate from time to time. In my own defense it really is unusual for a moron to be able to fake being intelligent. Except to other morons of course.

        • darkcycle says:

          I promised with all my heart to never call Kleiman a tool again. And I’m not going call him a tool now, so if you’re waiting for me to call Kleiman a tool, you’re just plain out of luck. I promised.

        • primus says:

          Don’t be so hard on yourself; you aren’t a moron MOST of the time.

        • Freeman says:

          Hey don’t feel bad Duncan, he’s likely fooled most of us here once. He’s a noted academic with some policy influence who says a lot of things that we like to hear. His main purpose for blogging seems to be to sell his books, which is probably why he tends to be vague about specifics while pointing you to his latest book for details. It wasn’t until I noticed his proclivity for unsubstantiated claims that he repeatedly failed to defend when challenged that I began to question his intellectual honesty, integrity, and sincerity. And while I don’t think he’s a moron faking intelligence, I don’t think he’s as smart as he thinks he is by half.

    • darkcycle says:

      Thanks, Freeman. I wasn’t even going to respond to Kleiman but I almost CHOKED on this part: “A friend asks whether my even-handed denunciation of the mendacity on both sides of the debate doesn’t amount to a false equivalence, since the legalizers are currently much more aggressive.”
      To which I replied: Only one side in this debate uses force to impose it’s will upon the other side.
      So you see, I was really very good. Oh, and I wouldn’t wait for him to provide you with a link….You’ll notice he accuses the “legalizers” of falsifying their facts…he does that to distract from his own.

      • Chris says:

        dictionaries needed all around… “aggressive” is a label for people who kill people, not those who complain about those killing people loudly.

      • Freeman says:

        Yeah DC, his unmerited arrogance really stands out at times. MK seems to actually believe that he’s THE even-handed and unbiased arbiter of “consensus reality” (as he calls it) and any and all claims to “facts”. Then he’ll throw out some ridiculous absurdity like 3 million cannabis users self-report serious problems with it or his standby favorite nobody goes to prison for possession. And every single time he’s challenged to show evidence for one of these, he abandons the thread, just like he’s done with this one.

        The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.
        ― Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

        • darkcycle says:

          Yeah, you’ll notice he doesn’t respond to me at all. I’m a former academic (my field was testing and assessment, but whatever), and I love slapping him down since he so obviously needs it. He engaged me once. Now he avoids me, I wonder why?

        • darkcycle says:

          …okay. Maybe I’ve called him a tool to his face a time (or two).

        • Freeman says:

          Yep, noticed that. He doesn’t respond to my criticisms much either. When he does, he usually does it like he did this time by waiting for someone else to reply to me and responding to my comment obliquely in his reply to the other commenter.

          We’re not worthy, doncha know. But Pete is! Pete represents a challenge, and Mark’s always trying and failing to get the better of him. Watching that gives me exactly the same feeling I got as a child watching Wile E. Coyote go after the Road-Runner. Mark pulls out the ACME propaganda, Pete side-steps it and runs logical circles around him, and we watch it blow up in Mark’s face. Good times, good times…

        • Freeman says:

          Even more apropos: When the ACME propaganda doesn’t blow up in Mark E. Coyote’s face, it disintegrates beneath him after running him over a rhetorical cliff!

          To be fair, Pete’s obviously got a huge advantage arguing against prohibition. If asked to argue the other side, it might be a different story, as evidenced by the difficulty we’re all having coming up with an example of a good quality pro-prohibition film to recommend.

    • Pete says:

      Thanks, Freeman. Obviously, Mark and I have had a number of disagreements over the years, to put it mildly. It was another interesting exchange.

      • Freeman says:

        And thank you, Pete; it was a marvelous thing to behold! I’ve sparred with Mark a time or two when I could get him to engage. That can be quite entertaining, but it’s always nice to sit back and watch a pro at work.

        The Peter Christ quote was a bulls-eye rebuttal. As always, he immediately reduced himself to name-calling (“minor-league Romney” — ROTFLMAO!), exposing a stark lack of depth to his argument, while you calmly responded with far superior logic, leaving him with no chance to respond rationally save to concede, which he did by default by dropping out of the discussion. A work of art, Maestro!

  16. DonDig says:

    “Permanent Midnight” comes to mind as a Hollywood biopic that courses through heroin addiction not completely unrealistically, (presumably), although I haven’t seen it since working on it in 1998. It’s a pretty tough experience, and certainly not a pro-prohibition piece per se, but no one that sees it is likely to want to follow in those shoes.

  17. Duncan20903 says:


    Obama’s other option on pot: Legalize it for everyone?

    This one is truly extraordinary as we find an article in the Christian Science Monitor which explains that Mr. Obama can end cannabis prohibition with a stroke of his ink pen.

    • claygooding says:

      Duncan,,CSM has had several articles that were in support of decriminalization,they started about the time The NAACP endorsed I-502 and A-64.

      Every since the NAACP started talking about the racial application of drug laws I have not seen but one Baptist Press article and they were speaking more on prescription drugs.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        Perhaps I need to read/listen better. But can you really blame me for thinking that it’s a waste of time to listen to a so called merrywanna “addiction” “expert” being interviewed on Fox news to comment on Washington’s newly minted re-legalization?

        But the man is enthusiastic and thinks that the law is going to give him a lot of OPM to spend in the pursuit of curing merrywanna “addiction”. Watch the 1st couple of minutes and you’d think it just another piece of prohibasitic propaganda.

        ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-

        On the fictional division of network TV tonight:
        The Mentalist on CBS (apparently written by someone who hasn’t chosen to enjoy cannabis since the 1970’s):

        “Panama Red” — The death of a young botanist leads the team into the lucrative world of medical marijuana, while Cho’s work with the rapid response team brings him back into contact with Summer, on THE MENTALIST, Sunday, Dec. 9 (10:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Samaire Armstrong returns as Summer, Cho’s former CI and girlfriend. Monique Gabriela Curnen (“Lie to Me”) returns as Agent Tamsin Wade, a CBI agent in the Gang Division.

      • Maria says:

        I’ve found that more often then not CSM has been a well balanced source of journalism. They seem to have high standards and respect for both their reporters, the subjects being interviewed/covered, and their facts. They also tend to go into some depth on the topics they cover (as much as is possible in a couple of “pages”.)

    • Chris says:

      This is the first article I’ve seen recently that acknowledges the possibility that the feds might not drag this out as long as possible. Every other article is worried about the federal/state conflict of law despite the fact that they do not actually have the manpower to stop this. So why worry? Local prosecutors are dismissing cases left and right and they have no chance of recruiting a new generation of enforcers for this who aren’t already smoking.

  18. mr. ikashini says:

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/07/more-states-consider-welfare-drug-testing-bills/ Even after November they’re still pushing this…(link)

  19. Cannabis says:

    You need to go back to the 1970s and get the filmstrip that they used to teach us about drugs along with the incense cone that smelled like pot. Kind of strange to show sixth graders. As I remember it they didn’t tell you what to do if you encountered the drugs, but you could identify them. It was just informational material. It was weird. I never did get why they taught us this stuff. All it did was to make us more curious.

  20. Byddaf yn egluro: says:


    Let us be clear from the outset: The Age is not in any way seeking to condone or encourage the misuse of addictive substances, be they legal or illegal. On the contrary, we stress that addictive drugs are extremely dangerous, particularly for young people whose brains are still developing and who are especially vulnerable to drug-induced mental health problems. Drug addiction and misadventure cause tragedies. Far too many Australian families can attest to that. That is the point: we are arguing for a public debate about policies to minimise harm. Such a debate should include discussion of decriminalisation of currently illicit substances, particularly cannabis. Such policies would use the health and community services systems to treat people with drug problems, rather than using the criminal justice system to punish them. Such policies would focus on regulation and education. Such policies would not include prohibition.
    The evidence is global and unambiguous that prohibition does not prevent the supply of drugs; it merely puts it in the hands of organised crime, as one of the last century’s greatest policy minds, Milton Friedman, argued decades ago. Nor does prohibition dent demand. Further, it is simply not sustainable to argue that decriminalisation boosts demand. That has not happened in places such as Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland, where that policy has been in place for some time. Nor will it happen in the United States, where a number of states are legalising possession of cannabis for recreational use, with others likely to follow.


  21. claygooding says:

    MPs Reveal Plans To Reform Drug Laws


    Senior MPs say Britain is losing its war on drugs and needs to consider legalisation, according to news reports.

    Members of the powerful Home Affairs Committee are set to tell Prime Minister David Cameron that the current approach has failed and new strategies are required.

    Thud,,,more funding required?

  22. Bailey says:

    A couple suggestions, one ficticuous, one real (its still propaganda, but you know):

    Requiem for a Dream- I’m still convinced if schools showed this as an anti-drug film they’d get higher conformity rate than under current DARE scare-tactics. It’s about a group of people in NYC who have or develop various kinds of addictions. The main character’s mother is hooked on prescribed pills, one of the movies’ stronger points is clearly showing that addiction isn’t just from black market drugs…

    Silver or Lead- Documentary that’s a ‘training video’ for police. Mostly boiler plate prohib kind of stuff, centered around dramatizations of Central American cartel’s greatest human rights violations. It lazily acknowledges that legalization is another options, and I think Norm Stamper or Ethan Nadelmann shows up briefly. However the central thrust from most speakers is that they’d solve this problem if only they could get more money/authority.

    I really think either is a suitable example to show kids the ‘horror’ of that policy their police/principles want.

  23. Servetus says:

    My nomination for prohibition film par exulance is “Berkeley to Boston Forty-Pound Lost Brick Bag Blues” written by none-other than Michael Crichton, of “Andromeda Strain” fame, and other successful venues.

    There’s something about seeing a corrupt nark mashed into a snow-bank that sends a true and reasonable message to the little children.

    And don’t delete sex scenes. The little children love that stuff.

Comments are closed.