Odds and Ends

bullet image So much talk and so many articles out there about the Project SAM nonsense. It seems that most people are somewhat skeptical about the ridiculous supposed “new direction” of no incarceration and yet no legalization. All it is, of course, is a weak variation on decrim that still focuses on law enforcement harrassing those who are causing no problems, and doesn’t address the black market at all.

It’s not serious policy — it’s merely sound bites in an attempt to give people a way to oppose legalization if they’re not actually, you know, thinking.

bullet image Fun with Twitter

Beau Kilmer: Can we please get some more research on THC:CBD ratios? http://t.co/5fyj70ba #marijuana #mjRAND

Kevin Sabet: @BeauKilmer Indeed! I just used the word “CBD” on national TV today. Wonder if it was a first!? We need much more discussion of it though.

Drug WarRant: @BeauKilmer Agreed. Would like to see much more research. Some is being done in the MedMar community, but overall, Schedule 1 status hurts.

Beau Kilmer: Wow @DrugWarRant and @KevinSabet agree on something : )

bullet image Fun with Twitter, part 2

Same Facts: Legalizing drugs tempts people into drug abuse. Banning them tempts people with drug dealing.

Drug WarRant: .@SameFacts @MarkARKleiman “Hey, now it’s legal. I have a sudden urge to abuse it.” Really?

Mark A.R. Kleiman: @DrugWarRant @SameFacts Yes, Pete, you can take a serious argument and make it sound stupid by misstating it. Good for you!

Lee Rosenberg: @MarkARKleiman @DrugWarRant How did he misstate it? He precisely re-stated the logical outcome of your thought.

I was, of course, immediately hit with that first statement: “Legalizing drugs tempts people into drug abuse.” How absurd. There’s no evidence that legalization even leads to increased drug abuse, let alone the bizarre notion that legalization itself somehow tempts people into drug abuse.

Although Mark didn’t note it until after this exchange, he was apparently referring to this post, which still didn’t in any way support that statement, even if it was hyperbolic.

bullet image Fun with Twitter, part 3

Mark A.R. Kleiman “Cannabis kills no one”? How about “Tobacco kills no one?” Same logic. http://t.co/TQwQBIgo

Drug WarRant “@MarkARKleiman: ‘Cannabis kills no one’? How about ‘Tobacco kills no one?’ Same logic. http://t.co/m8Faz67z” // Texting kills.

I think this particular exchange (and the referenced post) goes a long way toward understanding the thinking of Kleiman and others like him.

Mark was coming down on Andrew Sullivan for saying that marijuana has killed nobody.

My point in comments was an attempt to understand the different way of looking at things that comes from the paternalist.

Pete Guither says: “I think there is a legitimate difference in how people approach culpability.

If you smoke cigarettes for a long period of time, there’s a certain chance that that the chemicals in the cigarettes will cause your death. Drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can damage your liver, and lead to death. As Mark said, there is no firm evidence of similar proximate causation when talking about marijuana.

Drinking alcohol does not cause traffic fatalities. Drinking alcohol AND THEN doing something really stupid leads to traffic fatalities. The difference between what Andrew Sullivan is saying and what Mark Kleiman is saying is that Andrew blames the doing something stupid. Mark blames the alcohol.”

bullet image In which I thank Mark Kleiman…

In the linked post above, Mark is nice enough to give a shout out to our group here. It’s appreciated!

There are plenty of places for anti-drug-warriors to vent in peace; Pete Guither runs one.

I might not have chosen the term “anti-drug-warriors” due to the potential referential vagueness, but we know what he means.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Odds and Ends

  1. Pingback: Odds and Ends – Drug WarRant | newzbuff.com

  2. Freeman says:

    I took Mark to task for nit-picking Sullivan on a technicality for saying “Cannabis kills no one” when he is so fond of the exact same fallacy when he says something like “putting people in prison for getting high is utter fantasy”, as we’ve seen him do many times.

    And did you guys notice Mark managed to find some *absolute* certainty?

    What is absolutely certain is that some people die on the highway due to their own or someone else’s cannabis use.

    But I’m still waiting for him to offer a single example:

    I can’t think of a single example of a death attributed to anyone’s cannabis consumption, and I’ve never seen one offered by those making the sort of assertion Mark makes here…Now I’m not denying that this can happen, just pointing out that it’s much harder to come up with a solid example of it than just about anything else that might distract or impair a driver, like cell-phone use, for example. That means something to me in terms of risk assessment.

  3. Freeman says:

    Mark’s shout out to DWR was abused by a commenter at another article there who couldn’t cite uncivil commentary but just didn’t like the way a question was worded:

    (Quoting Kleiman:) “There are plenty of places for anti-drug-warriors to vent in peace; Pete Guither runs one. But the RBC is not such a place.”

    The web is a big place and Mark has made clear where the kid’s table is — please go there and stop bothering the grown-ups. Thanks.

    I couldn’t let that go, so I said:

    Pete Guither’s DrugWarRant.com is no more “the kid’s table” than the RBC is. Pete has very similar “play nice” commenting guidelines which he enforces, and which aren’t breached any more often there than they are here. I’ve seen folks from this community rebuked for poor behavior in the comment section there, as well as folks from the DWR community rebuked here. Pete is similarly committed to factual analysis of the issues. While they rarely agree on much, my take is that Pete and Mark are in far less disagreement over what drug policy should end up looking like than they are about how to get there from here, but both seem highly dissatisfied with the status quo and committed to advocating for improvements.

    But what really got my goat was this complete bullshit statement in Mark’s OP:

    We’re proud to have maintained an extraordinarily civil – though hardly conflict-free – comments section. That’s been much less true on drug-related posts, with a fairly high rate of bullying behavior from the pro-legalization side.

    Way to hypocritically paint your political opponents in a negative light. Legalizers get harassed, bullied, and told to “go to the kid’s table and stop bothering the grown-ups here” an awful lot at the RBC. Apparently there were some comments on another thread that got deleted before I saw them, but my perception is that pro-legalizers regularly receive more poor treatment than they give over there. And if you really want to get slapped around and abused, all you need to do is say something in defense of gun rights at the RBC. This one, directed at me, was later deleted:

    There is no doubt that Freeman is white, angry at the federal government for letting people with my skin color (and women) to take what is “rightfully” his. But no matter hard his little white dick gets at someone shooting children with a BIG GUN, the rest of us know better.

    I considered replying as “Tiny White Penis of Death”, but I was laughing too hard to come up with anything else to say about it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like that in the commentary here.

    • Peter says:

      im always a little confused when the issues of gun rights and human rights get conflated as the one seems to be the opposite of the other. doesnt the company of alex jones james yaeger and wayne la pierre suggest to you that you might be in closer to fascism than freedom ? i wonder what lapierre thinks of your right to consume cannabis?

      • Francis says:

        I gotta respectfully disagree with you on that one, Peter. The way I see it, if guns are banned, only criminals and governments will have guns (but I repeat myself). And what does LaPierre think of my right to consume cannabis? I have no idea, but it won’t change my view on his right to own a gun. Personally, I dislike guns, but I HATE violence. And that leads me to oppose prohibition — in whatever form it takes.

        • Peter says:

          francis is there nothing youd prohibit? what about surface to air missiles or sarin gas? zyklon b? semtex?

        • darkcycle says:

          I’m with Francis on that one. It is your last available means to resist. (And they don’t come much more left wing than me.)

        • Peter says:

          dc where does that arms race end? if your hypothetical assailant could have an assault rifle rifle are you going to obtain an rpg just incase? where would it end?

        • Windy says:

          Having a gun is the great equalizer, especially for women, like me. I work out and lift weights for my health and fitness, but there is no way I could fend off a burly attacker with strength alone (I’m only 5’5″ and 128# and I’m 68 years old a gun is my backup). I wouldn’t say I “like” guns, but I own one and I have a concealed carry permit (tho I should not need one, one is not supposed to have to get permisssion to exercise an unalienable right, and self-defense IS an unalienable right) and I enjoy shooting well with both pistol and rifle. When I was younger I could outshoot both my father and my hubby with a rifle. I haven’t tried lately, too many other interests, tho I should go back to the range to keep my skills up.

        • darkcycle says:

          That just does not make sense. There’s no “race”, and it doesn’t matter one whit that I do not have access to an RPG. Study some guerrilla insurrections and you’ll instantly get it. You use the pistol to get a rifle, the rifle to get an RPG, and the RPG to get a tank or helicopter. But the bottom line is the arms needed to start the process need to be in the hands of the people to start with, or they have to come in from outside. It’s the way we have to ensure that we aren’t simply trod down by our leaders. And so far as I know, there isn’t another way. It’s a sad statement, but humans have historically been exceptionally brutal in their public affairs. it is still a wonder to me how we managed to change that somewhat. But that is only within the last few centuries. We have a documented six thousand year history of brutality, and I assure you, it is considerably longer than the written record.

        • Windy says:

          Having a gun is the great equalizer, especially for women, like me. I work out and lift weights for my health and fitness, but there is no way I could fend off a burly attacker with strength alone (I’m only 5’5″ and 128# and I’m 68 years old a gun is my backup). I wouldn’t say I “like” guns, but I own one and I have a concealed carry permit (tho I should not need one, one is not supposed to have to get permisssion to exercise an unalienable right, and self-defense IS an unalienable right) and I enjoy shooting well with both pistol and rifle. When I was younger I could outshoot both my father and my hubby with a rifle. I haven’t tried lately, too many other interests, tho I should go back to the range to keep my skills up.

          Picked this up over at FB, written and posted by a black woman (I shared it, too):
          Kuuleme Stephens shared Breitbart – One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened’s photo.
          Gun Control has racist and discriminating roots yes! Gun Control has always been a tool to keep one group of people from being able to put up a fight or protect themselves! The Gun Act of 1968 was formed by Thomas Dodd (Chris Dodds father) and it was almost word for word from the Nazi’s 1938 Gun Control Act. Gun Control laws have been passed to keep Blacks, Indians, Jews, Hispanics, Immigrants, and other “undesirable elements of society” from owning guns. More often Gun Control stemmed from one group’s ignorance and fear of another group that they disliked and wanted control over. A disarmed group of people make good slaves………

      • Peter says:

        DC “It’s the way we have to ensure that we aren’t simply trod down by our leaders.”
        How’s that working out for you?

        • Byddaf yn egluro: says:

          Can’t we all get along?

        • darkcycle says:

          Fine. I’m currently free, and able to engage in political activity without (currently) being locked up for dissenting. By that measure, it’s working out just fine (so far, so good).

        • Plant Down Babylon says:

          If you don’t like the Cannabis laws in one state, you are always free to move to another that suits your liking.

          Same goes with living in a free republic. Im sure there are plenty of less violent gun free countries you could move to if you wanted to, Peter. Nobody’s stopping you.

          Maybe all the people who want a gun/violence free utopia can form their own republic/state/country or whatever. We’ll see how that works out for you. I think Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, bet it’s peaceful there.

          My right to defend myself vastly outweighs your ‘right’ to a gun free existence. Give away that right, and all the rest will fall like dominoes.

          In a free society, people are FREE to commit good or bad acts. That will never change (unless you don’t like freedom).
          For ‘We the People’ to be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, we must be equally armed.

          For the record, I only commit good acts, as I like to behave toward others the way I would like to be treated.

        • Peter says:

          Plant Down: “Same goes with living in a free republic. Im sure there are plenty of less violent gun free countries you could move to if you wanted to, Peter. Nobody’s stopping you.”

          Ah, the old America Love It or Leave It argument.

          Not sure that DrugWarrant is quite the right place to revive that one. And, much as I hate to be on the same side as Joe Biden, there is now a majority of US voters in favor of some level of gun regulation reform. I believe we’re seeing a tipping point in public opinion similar to what we’ve seen with cannabis.Some industrial-complexes are going to find themselves on the wrong side of history in the near future.

      • Peter says:

        Windy, I think you’re indirectly referencing the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership meme. Here’s a counter to that:

        • Windy says:

          Unalienable rights are natural rights every human (every creature on the planet, actually) are born with, and they are not to be restricted by government. Self-defense, just like self-ownership and self-determination, is a natural right. The 2nd Amendment is there so as to protect our natural rights from government, without the 2nd none of the others means jackshit.

      • Peter says:

        Malcolm is it? We are getting along. It’s “argument.” For some reason a few posters on this blog seem to think that the right to consume cannabis goes hand in hand with the right to own weapons. I don’t happen to agree, because one right affects nobody but the individual concerned whereas the other can, and does, affect other people.

    • Francis says:

      “bullying behavior from the pro-legalization side”

      Yes, the people who OPPOSE the use of coercion to tell others what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, THEY’RE the “bullies.” Unreal.

  4. claygooding says:

    Congress Moves To Stop DEA Funding To Attack Medical Marijuana


    • Byddaf yn egluro: says:

      Check out the 3:30 point for a perfect freudian slip.

      • Peter says:

        well spotted. would have been even better if political prostitute frank wolf had said it a few minutes later

    • Sounded like the only defense put forward about not allowing marijuana in medical states was that doctors were abusing oxycontin.

      The head of the FBI would rather indict the entire medical profession than to discuss the issue on its own merits. We need to pay attention to these nonsense detractors for the purpose of removing them from our government, permanently.

    • Irie says:

      Am still watching this exchange in Congress….love it! So many, many excellent arguments, I encourage (even though it is like preaching to the choir on this website) you all to watch it, true common sense of letting the states be laboratories in finding our way with Medical marijuana. Finally, we are listening to a grown up debate and I applaud all these (except Frank’s) gentleman’s and gentlewoman’s appeal and words to this debate. God bless them all, and thank you for your service.

    • Liam says:

      No surprise. Money trumps logic every time.

      “The 5 special interest groups that keep cannabis illegal are: Police Unions, Private Prisons Corporations, Alcohol and Beer Companies, Pharmaceutical Corporations, and Prison Guard Unions.

      Representative Frank Wolf has received campaign contributions from at least 6 contributors on the list.”


    • claygooding says:

      Did anyone notice how badly Rep Wolfe wanted hearings held first in committees? He knows the bought legislators on the committees won’t allow the amendment to reach the floor for debate,,I wish one of the supporters had pointed out that the only reason marijuana has the most young people in rehab is because the courts put them there.
      First the DEA created the problem of so many people in rehab for marijuana and then they use it as proof of harm.

  5. CJ says:

    oh yeah mark? then maybe you know who i am. i think Pete is too good for mud slinging but I live in mud and I shoot dope thats muddy black tar my abandoned building house stinks like an MSG filled take out shop ive got to take cologne showers to lose the scent so the K9s dont come barking down my dilapidated flop room. I think I’m going to suggest Pete that he not expose himself to the promiscuous public. Ill join twitter and handle these kind of engagements. LOL Mark youre a dumbass. Hey man, I really hope Mark does look here – I would love to know what his drug experience is. Is it only limited to opinion? Were you smoking weed in the bathroom at high school? No? Yes? Listen if youre only experience with drugs is your opinion then I’m afraid I can’t see how youre qualified to be publicizing thoughts on drug policy.

    I believe Mark Kleiman has openly said how he supports coerced treatment. Hi Mark, my name is CJ I am a junkie dope shooter. While youve been living in a drug free office writing your drug free articles I’ve been overdosing, getting arrested, begging for money etc. I’ve lived amongst the drug using and still do and always will. I have been in more treatment than you could imagine. If it happens again allow me to whole heartedly tell you I will do my time, pass my drug tests, get out and once again pierce my vericose with the needle tip. I PROMISE. You can never truly trust a junkie in these times of prohibition but I implore you to atleast trust this junkie about that. And that goes for the heroin/opiate majority – I’ll leave the crack and meth and weed people to say their piece about their thing. Mark your a damn idiot. You fail to realize the scope of this issue. Your coerced treatment ideals and third way rhetoric MAY be helpful TEMPORARILY to the user who is a year or 2 into it and has absolutely no idea what they’ve gotten themselves into. BUT rest assured since the “rehab” procedure doesnt work (theyre most all 12 step based and 12 step has a 5% success rate which is the same number of people who quit regardless of any outside influence so in essence it is fair to say the success rate may as well be 0%) these poor bastards will soon enough be multi year veterans, trained junkies passing in and out of shelters, half way houses, clinics, hospitals, ER’s, alleyways and thanks to prohibition ultimately the morgue.

    HEY MARK – I DON’T HATE YOU MAN. I just hate how your misguided and I hate how youre either too ignorant or too corrupt to know and do better.


    its sick crap like this that makes me shake my head and brace myself for a day of lies, panhandling and evading authorities in my quest for some somewhat artificial relief from this painful insanity.

  6. kaptinemo says:

    A tectonic shift has taken place in drug policy in this country, and it’s those for whom the policy was supposedly constructed who made the shift. What was originally top-down has become bottom-up, and largely at the pent-up dissatisfaction of the intended ‘beneficiaries’.

    What does this bode for policy analysts? That it doesn’t matter to the average person what denizens of ivory towers think regarding this issue.

    They’ve heard enough BS. They’ve seen enough talking heads arguing about trivial minutiae. It never can be said enough: the votes to re-legalize cannabis in WA and CO were votes of no confidence in the DrugWar itself. When the rubber meets the road, the policy analysts wind up as so much tire-flung pea gravel, scattered in the wake of the people voting based upon their real-life experiences rather than consulting policy wonks about their pet theories.

  7. stlgonzo says:

    Miss America Contestant Says Marijuana Should Only Be Legal For “Recreational Use and Health Care”

    I know it’s not what she meant, but I agree with her.


    • darkcycle says:

      Hahahahahahah! Not what she meant at all! But… “From the mouths of babes….” heheheheheheh! (sorry)

  8. Duncan20903 says:


    Boilerplate response stored on my hard drive:

    Smoking is not required to gain the benefits of cannabis, whether for medicinal need or just for enjoyment. Any potential health hazards due to smoking are not the hazards of cannabis, but of smoking.

    Vaporization is proven safe, less expensive, and preferred by patients over smoking by a margin of 7:1 in peer reviewed research published in 2007: 

    In addition to the vaporizer there’s oromucosal delivery via tincture or gel strip, infused edibles/liquids, eye drops, topical salves and suppositories, none of which require combustion or produce carbon monoxide.

    I always recommend that people seriously consider not smoking. I quit in 2006 and have never looked back. There are just too many other delivery methods which don’t require the person enjoying cannabis or utilizing it for it’s medicinal utility to inhale carbon monoxide. No carbon monoxide or other nasty byproducts of smoking are produced when the vaporizer is set at the optimal temperature.

    One other benefit of the vaporizer/not smoking is personal safety. Do you realize how many people get arrested every year because an LEO smelled the odor of burning cannabis? Things would have been different for those people if they had stuck with a delivery method other than smoking. Try making tobacco tea or sticking an ounce of tobacco up your ass and let’s see if you’re alive tomorrow to tell us how it felt.

    The long and the short of it is that smoking anything isn’t a very smart thing to do. Of course smoking some things is much worse than smoking other stuff. E.g. smoking a PEZ dispenser will kill you in very short order.

    • claygooding says:

      I agree that smoking is not necessary to get the medicine from marijuana and even go so far as to say smoking could be destroying some of the chemical compounds in marijuana so that smoking or vaporizing could miss some compounds that don’t “melt” into vapors to be absorbed.

      Cooking with cannabutter also doesn’t extract any of the compounds that don’t melt either,,the only way to insure getting all the medicine from marijuana is grinding it too dust and cooking it into your food.

      And “juicing” it raw doesn’t release the THC for your body to use.

  9. Nunavut Tripper says:

    ” And “juicing” it raw doesn’t release the THC for your body to use.”

    Actually it does Clay.

    Raw unheated cannabis doesn’t have any delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in it.
    It does have plenty of delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol acid (THCA) which is not psychoactive or it does not get you high. After heating the THCA to around 100 degrees celcius it kicks off the carbon atom (decarbolization)and becomes THC.
    THCA has significant medical benefits the same as THC but has the advantage of people being able to consume large amounts without getting seriously intoxicated.
    Most folks wouldn’t feel comfortable ingesting more than 10 or 15 mg , even guys like you and I with high tolerances couldn’t handle more than 20 or 25 mg but could ingest 500 or 1000 mg of THCA without getting extremely stoned.
    This research has been done by a California researcher Dr William Courtney
    I’ve attended two of his lectures at the Treating Yourself Medical Marijuana Expo in Toronto which were very enlightening. Juicing is for very ill people or I suspect as a preventative illness therapy. It’s not for fun but fortunately if you want to catch a buzz well that’s why God invented vaporizers.

Comments are closed.