President Obama would rather look stupid than interfere with the flow of cash to drug-war profiteers

The White House spends all year traveling around the country talking about their “third way” and their “21st Century Drug Policy” — that the focus needs to be on treatment and that we can’t arrest our way out of drug problems. That there’s too much focus on incarceration.

At the same time, they’re dealing with severe national budget pressures, so you’d think this would be the perfect excuse to actually significantly reduce spending on things like domestic drug law enforcement. Well, the budget for domestic drug law enforcement was 9.4 billion in 2012, and they’re asking for 9.5 billion in 2014.

There’s absolutely no good political reason to do this… except to fund profiteers who give campaign donations.

The only way they can even find a positive spin is by throwing even mmore money at treatment, further pushing up the entire drug war budget. And even then… As the Huffington Post reports:

The White House budget proposal for fiscal 2014 devotes 58 percent of drug-control spending to punishment and interdiction, compared with 42 percent to treatment and prevention.

So much for the “third way.”

I can’t imagine what it must be like to have the complete lack of integrity to work in the Drug Czar’s office… that would allow you to write a post like this one.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to President Obama would rather look stupid than interfere with the flow of cash to drug-war profiteers

  1. The President is aware that “the War On Drugs has been an utter failure”

    What is he doing about it? Absolutely nothing. For 9 years. Lip service.

    Now, we don’t even get that. He says he can’t do it by himself.

    Hell, he won’t do anything about it by himself.

    • Jeff Trigg says:

      Obama was first elected in 1996, so he’s been condoning, promoting and expanding the drug war for 17 years. We knew exactly what Obama would do about the drug war long before he ever ran for federal office.

  2. jean valjean says:

    obama is like harry lime, the war profiteer from the third man. he looks down from a great height and asks the american people if we really care if one of the “dots” stops moving as a result of his
    drug war profiteering activities.

  3. kaptinemo says:

    Google the following:

    Clinton Obama June 6 2008 Chantilly Virginia

    And keep in mind those he met with, the same people who trashed the world economy, were the very same banksters the UN stated publicly were kept afloat courtesy of the dirty drug money laundering, the very same practice they’ve been proven guilty of for decades.

    Bite the hands that lifted him to the throne? For all his bluster against the banks, with him saying that he’s all that stands between them and ‘pitchforks’, this puts things into proper perspective. It’s why no banksters have done the perp-walk.

    It becomes very self-evident who wears a collar, and who holds the leash. This low, bad theater is just more of the American political version of ‘Punch and Judy’, while the rubes in the audience are having their pockets picked.

    The impetus for change is coming from the bottom up; it’s pretty much the only way it can, now. It’s too rigged at the top.

  4. Duncan20903 says:

    Oh my gosh! This is stunning news:

    Professional musicians in California choose to enjoy cannabis!

    The rather comic filing also discusses an incident involving Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine, who brazenly lit a joint in the lobby. “It’s Adam Levine, you know from Maroon 5. He can do whatever he wants,” a UMPG employee allegedly responded. “If he wants to come to the lobby and do a line of coke on the floor, it’s okay.”

    Actually, the complaint makes UMG seem like a rather stimulating work atmosphere. The guard reported “finding bras hanging in the studio and people being found passed out in the showers after partying and drug use,” not to mention condoms in bathrooms and “UMPG employees engaged in intimate touching and grinding, involving buttocks and genitalia.”

  5. claygooding says:

    If they are slotting the same amount for enforcement that they did last year the 9 billion increase over last years budget must be for fighting legalization. Total budget “requested” for 2012 was 16.5 billion and after it was approved more was given to buy Ecuador back into the fold,,plus whatever Obama had to promise in Bogota while the Secret Service and DEA were throwing up smoke screens for him to operate behind.
    This years request was for 25 billion and it was requested before CO and WA voted in legalization,,so they are hiding any increase in budget for fighting those states programs,,prolly HS as they did with the eradication programs.

  6. Matthew Meyer says:

    The graphic accompanying Rafael Lemaitre’s post attempts to paint treatment as the biggest part of spending; it’s the biggest column, all the way to the left.

    But then there are *three* other columns: domestic law enforcement, interdiction, and international.

    I think those would be taller than the treatment column if stacked together, as an opposition between treatment and LE approaches would demand.

    • claygooding says:

      We need the amount funded too Homeland Security for eradication programs,,no matter how they spin it the funds are law enforcement involved in a program initiated by the DEA and any “liaison” agent from the DEA too HS is probably the oversight agent in charge.
      They are hiding funding being spent on the war on drugs by dressing them in different clothes.

  7. divadab says:

    “The entire federal edifice seems to be devoted to maintaining the status quo.”

    Doesn’t this put the DEA’s flagrant lying for dollars into context? Jobs for the boys, that’s what it’s all about.

    And in this context, Congressional inactivity is a feature, not a bug. They get paid by us, and by their sponsors, whether they do anything or not. SO they take the easy route, pure partisan phony war, and do nothing to change how things work.

    Filthy worthless bribe-taking scum.

    • claygooding says:

      Which puts us back too “NO INCUMBENTS”. It is the only way we will get our country back and it will take several election cycles of that. With the internet we can even have more viable politicians,,where better too campaign than directly too millions of voters,,even chat with them for all too see and hear.

      • War Vet says:

        Not just ‘no more incumbents’, but we need to make it legal where all those running for office can debate one another in their various areas, instead of prohibiting a candidate from debating with other candidates. My third party candidate was denied access to speak at our local university (largest growing university in the State) at a debate with the other two candidates. The only two choices my area knew about were A) a former district attorney (yuck) or B) a young plumber who owned several plumbing businesses and won by promising to clean the shit out of Washington.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        Typically, in my state IL, more than 60% of our 177 State Reps and Sens run unopposed every election cycle over the past 30 years. Not even one independent candidate was able to get on the ballot for 25 years in those races because of horrible election laws. Democrats don’t believe in democracy for Illinois. I hope your state is better, because here, not even half of the incumbents will have an opponent on the ballot.

        • claygooding says:

          Jeff,,you may see more challengers this election because America is waking up and they are getting angry with the obvious support of the insurance corporations ,oil corp subsidies and the recent Monsanto free pass,not even counting the people supporting ending the drug war thaere are a lot of people going to be asking questions and demanding changes,,IMO

        • War Vet says:

          There is not a huge political difference between Democrat and Republican in Oklahoma (significantly speaking). To pick Dem in Oklahoma is like picking a car with four tires, while picking a GOP in Oklahoma is like picking a car with four tires. If there is a difference, it’s that more African Americans run for Dem than GOP, so the Dem issues would be a bit more urban than rural from what I can tell. But other than that I cannot make out the differences. But yes, Illinois from this angle looks very corrupt politically . . . Chicago is synonymous with political corruption. When they wouldn’t let my candidate speak, I was very shocked because of the town it was held in. This town’s greatest icon was Americas’ extremely famous early 20th century (voted most famous American of the 20th Century by America and the world), Will Rogers whose satirical writings and voice were very political back in the 1920’s and 30’s –movies, Hollywood, D.C. and rope tricks . . . but then again, what can you expect from a town that boasts of having this state’s largest rug lust (or rug dust –hug gust, drug dust IDK?), which was merely a series of busting users and smurfs. Many elements of our town had it’s tentacles in the two party debate I made reference to and they made sure it would be two party only. When I wrote my old professor and asked about it, he received the answer of: a time frame issue(no incumbents) and only to be between the ‘Republicans and Democrats’, ‘Primary Parties’ only. God love this town anyway.

        • claygooding says:

          War Vet,,we really don’t have to remove all incumbents,,just enough to wake the rest to the fact that their days are limited if they continue enriching corporations and banks while stomping on the poor,not only the drug war profiteers but the entire corporate garage sale they have going now. When some key legislators lose their seats it may do the trick,,and it doesn’t matter whether the losses only replace Dems with Reps or vice versus,,it is incumbents losing that will shake up congress and our state legislatures,,,I think the next election will break records on the number of voters that hit the ballots.

        • War Vet says:

          Clay -wouldn’t removing all incumbents for a few election years get them scared straight? That way they’ll be more inclined to do a better job if they want their seat. Granted, like you said, with people like Rand and Ron and Polis, you don’t want to remove all of the incumbents. But then again, what do you do with people like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma? He’s not for legalization but his stance on fiscal responsibility leaves one to think that he believes the war on drugs is an economic waste, though he’s never admitted it to me when he’s written back. What do you do about a guy that won’t talk about legalization but at the same time has many tricks up his sleeve when adding a few thousand jobs and saving a few hundred million dollars? Tom Coburn is a catch 22 for me: I don’t like him but am sure glad I voted for him (considering my options).

        • Windy says:

          Have you noticed that even Democrats are starting to complain about Obama’s policies, including Obamacare, now that they are beginning to see the consequences of those policies.

          War Vet, that policy of not allowing 3rd party candidates on the ballot (or in the debates) is Statewide in OK.

        • War Vet says:

          Windy: 3rd parties were allowed on the ballot for the most part, at least in my district, one was allowed to run . . . of course I’ve only been voting for 12yrs so I’m not up to snuff on Oklahoma’s ballot laws or past 3rd party candidates. My guy was lucky enough to get on the final one, it’s just that my town wouldn’t allow him to speak at one of the most latest and influential debates for the district; though other places would allow him to speak with the other candidates . . . I’m surprised that a college with a strong ‘liberal’ branch and system of roots would not allow him to speak. I had no doubts that my vote for a 3rd party candidate would be ignored, but he might have had an idea during the debate that the winning candidate could have utilized . . . now our wiener, or winner is politicking without the wisdom my guy could have shared. My candidate was a British military war Veteran, a former U.S. military officer, an innovator in early computer businesses, and he did many jobs in regards to agriculture and industry . . . he literally wore a million hats which would have meant he quite literally represented the majority of those living and working in my district. He was totally against the war on drugs from what he wrote me. This man had integrity. When I write to new candidates who are running, I can sound a bit rude (especially to the DA I wrote) because their policy and ideas will kill my friends still in uniform if they are not ethical and wise, which means I have every right to be harsh in tone and expect a response and he’s the only one who wrote me back . . . I told him about the ‘Godfather’ Hollywood kind of Mafia in our Baghdad CIA prison and he told me of accounts of a soldier he knew reporting on Mafia hits coming from America or Italy happening in Iraq because of the drug trade which significantly influences our war more than our very own DoD policies affect the war (since insurgencies forces polices to change all the time, as opposed to less violence enabling let’s say a policy to downgrade our troop presence or to leave Iraq or Afghanistan far earlier than we actually did: more fighting equals a longer and stronger game and drug money has the most responsibility to financing that fight . . . had drug money not existed, that specific war would have never existed and if it did, then our presence would have looked more like a ‘Marshall-rebuilding-kind of Plan’ than a war). I’m a firm believe that the War on Drugs negatively affects non-drug users far more than it affects drug users . . . I would say that the War on Drugs treats drug users a lot better than it treats non-drug users . . . Prison is just like going on a Carnival Cruise ship in comparison to war and economic despair.

  8. Pingback: Obama would rather look stupid than interfere with the flow of cash to drug-war profiteers | The Freedom Watch

  9. Servetus says:

    Hemp to the rescue, update.

    Hemp, which the U.S. federal government ignominiously regards and treats as an illicit drug, may be the latest weapon in the war on Monsanto.

    In a forthcoming documentary called Dirty White Gold, Monsanto is seen taking over the cottonseed industry with GM seeds that raise havoc, and in some cases cause deaths of people in foreign lands:

    The website of US-based biotech giant Monsanto boasts that the corporation qualifies as “a sustainable agriculture company”.

    Given Monsanto’s legacy as a producer of the lethal defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, Southeast Asian agriculture would presumably beg to differ with this characterisation.

    Sustainability is also not the first word that comes to mind when contemplating Monsanto’s policy of sowing the earth with genetically modified seeds that destroy soil and are designed with nonrenewable traits so as to require constant repurchase as well as acquisition of a variety of other company products like fertilizers and pesticides.

    Nor would the term appear to define a situation in which nearly 300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995 after being driven into insurmountable debt by neoliberal economics and the conquest of Indian farmland by Monsanto’s Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton.

    And there’s this:

    “Indigenous cotton varieties can be intercropped with food crops. Bt-cotton can only be grown as a monoculture. Indigenous cotton is rain fed. Bt-cotton needs irrigation. Indigenous varieties are pest resistant. Bt-cotton, even though promoted as resistant to the bollworm, has created new pests, and to control these new pests, farmers are using 13 times more pesticides then they were using prior to introduction of Bt-cotton. And finally, Monsanto sells its GMO seeds on fraudulent claims of yields of 1500/kg/year when farmers harvest 300-400 kg/year on an average.”

    We can presume Monsanto controls the domestic cotton industry with their new Frankenseeds. But do we need Bt-cotton or Monsanto if we have hemp? Down with Bt-cotton. Hemp = sustainable agriculture.

    And do we want the Monsanto profiteers going anywhere near our hempseeds?

    Stay tuned as the war on some drugs continues.

    • claygooding says:

      You can bet Monsanto already has a thc controlled GMO that will satisfy know nothing legislators that they can keep marijuana controlled as they do with 3.2 beer in OK(gets the Native Americans drunk slower and another racially motivated policy).
      It will make it possible to then prosecute anyone selling marijuana without the same signature as “green market” weed and throw the book at us. Whether they can force us to grow only approved seeds is another matter but even if they did,,we could still grow our own and as long as none leaves your home they would have no way of knowing.

      • Matthew Meyer says:

        Basically, though, any alteration in the federal zero tolerance policy on marijuana means a collapse of the political will and moral authority to devote substantial resources to prosecuting cannabis farmers.

        I doubt very much effort will be put into eradicating crops that violate patents or near-weed laws.

        The bigger problem may be that easy availability for consumers in retail locations makes entry into the market difficult for small farmers who don’t meet regulatory standards.

    • War Vet says:

      There you go Servetus, you had to say the H word didn’t you. A GMO hempseed: that’s an oxymoron I believe . . . like hemp seed needs to get better. Like Clay said, it wouldn’t be that hard to force a GMO hempseed . . . I can see GMO as being a loophole for allowing hemp in our nation . . . non GMO modified hemp/hempseeds will still be under the Schedule One controlled status . . . a genetic version of the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act sort of say. I hope not.

      We all know that Cannabis/hemp prohibition came out of racism and for the greedy advancement of synthetics and petroleum (which would make hemp prohibition illegal under the 1890 Sherman Anti Trust Act: which begs the question does a Federal Law trump a Federal Law?). But I think we should add another reason just to demonize such people who would enforce the hemp/cannabis laws: Why won’t cops allow Americans to grow industrial hemp? Answer, because the average American cop is under the impression that people smoke their socks or shoes or house to get high. Even though I know this to be false, their actions in prohibiting millions of American hemp jobs and products ‘could’ also indicate utter stupidity, thus meaning it is impossible to disprove cops don’t believe people try to smoke their socks, or they would attempt to disprove such a belief by not prohibiting hemp. I also know for a fact that when he was alive, Osama Bin Laden would not want the U.S. military to have access to another ‘Hemp for Victory’ hemp planting campaign and if he could, Bin Laden would do anything he could to stop American hemp, thus logically meaning that all who oppose hemp being used by the U.S. Military during a time of war must be a follower or ally of Osama Bin Laden and likewise, a Jihadist. This is why I love logic: you can utilize separate occurrences to reveal a correlation that has as much in common with ‘it’ being a fact than for ‘it’ being a simple coincidence. For example: I know the DEA are not a radical jihad terrorist group, but America is at war against Jihadists and there are great advantages to hemp being used by the American military to fight said Jihadists, but the DEA won’t allow Americans and her military to utilize hemp for the war, thus physically proving the DEA are jihadists because they have the same goals and beliefs as other jihadists whom are fighting American troops: keep the U.S. military from utilizing hemp during a time of war. I know this to be false, but the actions of the DEA could also be indicative of those who practice or support Jihad. Because the DEA still won’t let the American military utilize hemp for the war, it is 100% impossible to disprove they belong to a jihad organization because logic supports the probability and plausibility of the DEA belong to a jihad-like organization based on their stance on keeping hemp prohibited during a time of war. I’ve discovered that the above ‘demonizing’ approaches work very well amongst those who are on the fence . . . at the very least I get people to start comparing the DEA to Al Qaeda instead of comparing the DEA to the likes of the FBI, or DOJ or the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department . . . I get people to start comparing cops (and other DOJ) to those who have Down’s Syndrome, instead of them comparing cops to firefighters or cops to doctors. A firefighter wouldn’t think of placing hemp on a list of mind altering substances, thus meaning firefighters unlike cops, don’t believe a pair of shoes or a pair of pants or some concrete will get you high. Of course this approach completely brings about a ‘question’ of why authority does what they do: are the authorities so dumb that its technically illegal for them to be in such a position just like it’s illegal for a man with severe Down’s Syndrome to be an airline pilot; are our authorities in unison with the radical terrorist who did 9/11; is it something else; or is it a mix of all three?

      • Servetus says:

        That’s a complicated argument. The argument I use for hemp involves my wallet. My last wallet was made of hemp. It lasted 8 years before needing replacement, compared to 1 year for leather. So I bought another hemp wallet.

    • What I want to know is: What is Monsanto planning within the next six months that requires no accountability for their actions?

      • darkcycle says:

        GMO Alfalfa. The release of their new Alfalfa will contaminate all the Alfalfa crops in the U.S. because of the fact that Alfalfa is a wind pollinated perennial. They already acknowledge that their genes WILL contaminate all non GMO Alfalfa, now they needed immunity from the results of it’s release.
        So, you’re thinking “Alfalfa? What’s the big deal? I don’t eat alfalfa.” Well, yes you do. It’s in all animal feeds, and organic alfalfa is used to fatten organic beef and organic chicken. You can’t feed GMO’s to animals and still claim they’re organic. So say good by to organic milk and beef and chicken, unless you raise it yourself and feed them your own grass. There are other potential problems related to just consuming that stuff, both for the animals and for the people who eat them. But now that won’t matter and Monsatan is just going to go right ahead and do it.

        • Windy says:

          Scary, I worry about the horses, too, we don’t eat them but there are more horses owned and ridden in America today that there were when the horse was the only mode of travel other than being a pedestrian or riding on one of those noisy, stinky, smoky steam powered trains. There has got to be a way to stop Monsanto before they create an ELE (extinction level event), they’ve come close already with the bee die off (in part due to their plants which manufacture their own pesticides).

  10. Servetus says:

    Many of the stories we’re hearing about medical marijuana’s ability to treat symptoms of autism in children just received some scientific support:

    Mutations found in individuals with autism block the action of molecules made by the brain that act on the same receptors that marijuana’s active chemical acts on, according to new research reported online April 11 in the Cell Press journal Neuron. The findings implicate specific molecules, called endocannabinoids, in the development of some autism cases and point to potential treatment strategies.

    … The results also indicate that targeting components of the endocannabinoid signaling system may help reverse autism symptoms.

    Neuron, Foldy et al.: “Autism-Associated Neuroligin-3 Mutations Commonly Disrupt Tonic Endocannabinoid Signaling.”

  11. Duncan20903 says:


    So what do people think about the new “study” from pee-pee ex-spurt Quest Diagnostics (warning, link opens .PDF) which during it’s attempt to give CPR to the undead “gateway” theory found that patients who take medicinal cannabis don’t have an elevated use of prescription drugs? They’re claiming that in depth examinations of other peoples’ urine indicates that people who choose to enjoy cannabis (“recreational” “users”) are more likely to “abuse” prescription drugs. Hey wait a second, how the heck can they tell that it isn’t that prescription drug abusers are more inclined to choose to enjoy cannabis rather than vice versa?

    The “study” is more accurately called a business advertisement which is attempting to increase the sales of QD’s prescription drug monitoring service. But I thought the finding about medicinal cannabis patients was particularly interesting, not only the results but also the fact that they were recognized as a separate cohort. Also amusing in the way a train wreck is interesting is their characterization of the producers of drug free urine (42%) as people who misuse prescription drugs.

    If you sprinkle when you tinkle please be neat and wipe the seat!
    ~~The Quest Diagnostics motto

  12. You are gonna love this:
    Guest Column: Marijuana not a safe or effective medicine – By Peter Bensinger and Andrea Barthwell

    • jean valjean says:

      wondered what barfwell has been doing lately.

    • allan says:

      wow… it’s stunning how absurd this is. They trot out the same old shit (3 times the fatal accidents in CO?), rely on the “no medicine is smoked” convolution and both are drug war profiteers – blatantly so. They have no shame and must be totally unaware of the fools they paint themselves.

      I’d comment but the site is freaky (for my old ‘puter and browsers), think I’ll havta pen an LTE instead (LTEs to letters@) Please, share that article, comment on that lying, hypocritical screed and give those two a concussive broadside. Definitely worthy of a new post from Pete…

      Interesting that on 24 March, the paper ran an editorial for legalization in which they made this comment:

      But none of the harm from using marijuana is worse than the other two legalized drugs in the United States: alcohol and tobacco. It’s hard to take anyone who argues otherwise seriously.

      It may be that the SJ-R editors have deliberately lobbed us a fat one right down the middle, inviting drug policy reformers to verbally bludgeon these two advocates of the Hypocritic Oath. Pot and the drug war are growing hot-button issues and any paper worth it’s fiber rides those waves.

      • allan says:


        LTEs to:

      • Duncan20903 says:


        They have no shame and must be totally unaware of the fools they paint themselves.”

        Nah, more likely they subscribe to H.L. Mencken’s philosophy and know that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Toss in a side order of David Hannum updated for the 21st century, “there’s a sucker born every second” and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.

        P.S. yes David Hannum. P.T. Barnum was there but it was Mr. Hannum’s line. If you’re unfamiliar with the Cardiff Giant hoax perpetrated by George Hull who sold the rights to perpetuate the hoax to Mr. Hannum, it’s a very amusing story. It also is very relevant to the (some) drugs hoax.
        They might be giants…

    • Duncan20903 says:

      It sure looks like Ms. Barthwell hasn’t missed any meals recently.

  13. kaptinemo says:

    I’m waiting on my registration so I can have some fun there.

    They are either getting cocky or desperate. Do they really want the fact publicly known that Barthwell was lying to her paymasters by first saying that cannabis has no medicinal uses when she was on our dime, and then started making noises about only ‘smoked’ marijuana having no medicinal use after talking with GWPharma and taking a job with them later?

    Like I said, cocky or desperate. Or is the former symptomatic of the latter?

  14. The game is a foot says:


    Well this is a really horrid event. Truly fucked up. The jack boots executed a search warrant in November of last year against the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program. How the heck did I miss that this happened until today? Was this publicized?

    Feds scoop up medical marijuana patient records in Oregon investigation

    As part of an investigation into growers in Oregon suspected of dealing on the black market (the PI doesn’t name suspects in investigations unless they have been charged with a crime), a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration obtained the warrant to aid in his investigation.

    “I know that in order to effectively pursue this investigation,” wrote special agent Michael Gutensohn in his application for the warrant, “I need to investigate each of the patients, growers and caregivers associated with” names discovered in the investigation.

    “I have probable cause to believe that records from the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program will contain evidence and instrumentalities of marijuana manufacturing and trafficking and conspiracy to commit marijuana manufacturing and trafficking offenses,” he wrote.

  15. Opiophiliac says:

    Some funny quotes from the latest chronicle article on welfare and unemployment suspicionless drug testing. Why don’t they just hang a sign on the door that reads: Drug Users Need Not Apply?

    “You’re OK with (drug users) getting federal dollars if they’ve had a doobie and get the munchies and need more food stamps?” challenged Sen. Tommy Tucker (R-Union). “Sit down.”

    Absolutely brilliant argument. We can’t give food stamps to those damn druggies, they’ll get the munchies and need more food stamps to pay for it!

    Welfare should never subsidize the irresponsible choices of otherwise capable people who instead elect to stay at home, play video games, and get high with their friends,” Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) said.

    Yes those federal welfare dollars are marked for bailing out the banks whose “irresponsible choices” damn near torpedoed the economy. Ignorant stereotypes aside, apparently welfare is only for those who launder drug money, not those who actually consume the drugs.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Let’s not forget to mention that unemployment compensation is not a hand out, it’s insurance with employer paid premiums. By definition only those who aren’t fired for cause are eligible to collect so don’t let anyone try to scam you into believing that the pothead got fired for going to work stoned. Getting fired for being substance addled at work would not see anyone getting a check from unemployment insurance.

      Did you know that people convicted of (some) drugs law violations can be excluded from food stamp eligibility? It’s done at the State level so it isn’t universal, some States don’t exclude, some exclude for a limited time after release from the jurisdiction of their Courts, some exclude only the felons, etc.

      • Windy says:

        That is partly correct, Duncan, at least in my State, the employer’s share is met with an equal amount from the taxpayers. Because hubby used to work in seasonal employment (construction) he used to collect unemployment for about 6-12 weeks every year, the State keeps whatever a citizen doesn’t collect in benefits, hubby only once ever came close to collecting everything his employer paid in, still leaving the State with a profit. It’s a racket for the State, and they do everything they possibly can to prevent an unemployed person from reciving unemployment benefits. Plus they expect even people like hubby who was certain to be back to work with the same employer after a short period of time (he worked for the same company for 40 years) to job hunt every week, and to take any job offered even if it was minimum wage (hubby made upwards of $20 per hour due to his skill and long term employment with that company — they valued him). If you couldn’t prove you looked for work for any week benefits would be denied for that week (and benefits were about 60% of working income).

  16. The door is a jar says:


    Do you actually have her on record not qualifying the no medical utility for cannabis hoax with the word “smoked”? A couple of dozen months ago it struck me that the paid parasites always qualify that phrase. Here’s a classic from 4/20/2006 which is still trotted out as proof that not only is medicinal cannabis not FDA approved but is FDA rejected:
    Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine

    The prohibasites just love their word games. The redefinition of the word “addiction” to so watered down and general that cannabis qualifies, not differentiating between ∆9-THC and THC-cooh, redefining the word “victim” to include people who are annoyed by the thought of anyone choosing to enjoy cannabis so that cannabis law violations aren’t “victimless” crimes any more and carefully stating that “smoked” merrywanna isn’t a medicine are all products of the prohibasites’ spinning propaganda. It’s remarkable that they think the public stupid enough to claim that they’ve proven a negative even if limited to “smoked” merrywanna. Remarkable does not imply surprising.

    Oh, BTW in case you’ve missed it just a few days ago Great Britain did the equivalent of re-scheduling Sativex® from Schedule II to Schedule III. (equivalent is a keyword in that sentence) and the U.S. granted GWP another patent. GWP appears to be establishing a tradition of announcing some kind of good news for their shareholders on 4/20. But they’ve already delayed the press release of one of their patent grants from early April until the 20th so they may just use one or both of those two things. The stock price is in the toilet FYI.

    • Jean Valjean says:

      “redefining the word “victim” to include people who are annoyed by the thought of anyone choosing to enjoy cannabis”… have you a link?

      • allan says:

        Jean, no link off-hand but there indeed was a movement to declare legalization advocacy a violation of constitutional rights, our dear friend Linda Taylor was a vocal proponent of same.

        And… if you’re unaware of our gal activist1 check out this vid. It truly is a must-see if you haven’t.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        No I don’t, but let’s see how long it takes me to dig one up, shall we? Start your stopwatch in



        • Duncan20903 says:

          Well that took me way longer than I expected.

          Myth: Smoking Marijuana Harms Only the Smokers
          Reality: Marijuana Use Harms Nonusers
          by Karen P. Tandy, DEA
          May 02, 2012

          We need to put to rest the thought that there is such a thing as a lone drug user, a person whose habits affect only himself or herself. Drug use, including marijuana use, is not a victimless crime. Some communities may resist involvement because they think someone else’s drug use is not hurting them.

  17. Duncan20903 says:


    Stephan Colbert in rare form rails against the re-legalization of cannabis in his own inimitable style, exposes the potheads secret plan for Idaho:
    You may smoke the bride, LOLOL

    Now that’s just plain funny.

  18. jean valjean says:

    russian blacklist of us torturers banned from entry includes 4 dea agents.

  19. Pingback: Flying the False Flag of Reform – 2013 National Drug Control Strategy « Drug WarRant

Comments are closed.