Scary Medical Marijuana

Mark Kleiman has a post up: Why I always put “medical marijuana” in scare quotes. It’s a masterpiece of muddled confusion.

He accepts in the first sentence that “marijuana has medical value.” That should be enough right there to stop him from using scare quotes. After all, he is a public policy writer and has to know that using the scare quotes is, in essence, a strong implication that he doesn’t believe marijuana has medical value. He essentially admits that his scare quotes are a lie.

What appears to bother him is the ickiness of the system. He admits that politics is a messy business (“laws and sausages”) and agrees that the outcome was good. But he doesn’t like the fact that so many people, who don’t really need marijuana for the strict medical purposes intended in the law, are buying their recreational pot from nice clean medical marijuana sources instead of from the usual street criminals. And what really sets him off is that they seem to be… flaunting it.

Of course, this also fits in Kleiman’s ongoing narrative of being disgusted with both sides (criminalizers and legalizers). And sure, there are people who think that legalizers’ interest in medical marijuana is disingenuous, since their main purpose is recreational legalization.

This is, perhaps then, a good time to remind folks about the most glaring difference between those who have been pushing for legalization, and those who try to defend criminalization.

Yes, many legalizers came to the issue without much knowledge about the medical benefits of marijuana. And yes, they discovered that medical marijuana was also good for the legalization movement. They realized that the mass public would be less likely to be scared by a product that was used by grandmothers with cancer, which could defang the decades of government propaganda. And so they learned more about medical marijuana. And, lo and behold, they discovered it was really true. And they met inspirational people whose illness was transformed by using medical marijuana. And so they became legalizers who also cared about medical marijuana. It was not incompatible at all. Sure, they were “using” medical marijuana as a foot in the door for legalization, but only because that was the best way to also insure that sick people would be able to get their medicine. [Note: I do not give permission to quote the previous sentence without including the entire sentence.] If you talked to most legalizers, they would prefer that marijuana was legalized for everyone, but, failing that, would at least want to make sure that sick people could be helped.

Contrast this with the criminalizers. They also realized that medical marijuana was a foot in the door to legalization, and would neutralize many of the scary lies they had told about it. And so they opposed medical marijuana, despite knowing that it could help people. They were willing to force sick people to be hurt, and even arrest them for trying to get better, all in order to protect a failed political position. Yes, they used sick people. It’s despicable, and there’s no way that you can legitimately compare the two sides’ tactics as being even close to morally equivalent.

This dynamic exists across the spectrum in the legalization vs. criminalization debate.

Someone may come to the legalization discussion originally because they like to smoke pot, and they typed “Why is marijuana illegal?” into a search engine.

At the time, they may not have had any particular knowledge about the connections of race and the drug war. But then they learn about how extraordinarily racist the drug war has been, and because they are real people, this bothers them, and the more they learn, the more they are determined that something must be done about it. In this way, legalization became more urgent to them, because now there was another reason for doing it.

And there is a whole laundry list of reasons why legalizers become more involved and passionate about it the more they learn (and sure, many of them still like to smoke pot and would like to do so legally). Here are just a few of those reasons:

  • Medical value to sick people
  • Letting farmers grow hemp as another crop if they wish
  • Nutritional/energy/fiber values, etc. of the hemp plant
  • Racial impact of the drug war
  • Corruption (and militarization) of law enforcement
  • Civil Liberties
  • People dying in Mexico
  • Disfunctional foreign policy
  • Environmental destruction
  • Black-market profits, particularly for violent criminals
  • Unregulated quality


And on each of these issues, legalizers are on the right side. In other words, in each situation, legalization is connected to a better outcome for that issue, whereas criminalization results in a worse outcome.

This is, I think, part of the reason that some people are perplexed by what they may see as an unseemly rabid doggedness on the part of legalizers. After all, why are they so passionate about just wanting to smoke some pot? We care about a whole lot more than that.

So where does that leave Mark Kleiman? After all, he doesn’t like either side, really. He is for a specific limited approach to legalizing marijuana, but [in the larger picture of the entire class of recreational drugs] he is also in favor of maintaining prohibition in order to insure swift penalties for those who are unable to control their drug use.

I think it would be safe to say that he favors the use of government to prevent people from doing what he firmly believes is not in their best interest (and he believes that government can actually do that).

Hey, it’s a cause. Not one I agree with, but he’s at least consistent about that.

And I’ll take my list above, for which I have become passionate through the years of study and learning on the issues, over his cause any day.

[Note: Post updated to reflect unclear writing on my part. The overall bedrock principles of legalization to me hold true regardless of the specific drug (although each of course is different in the way it should be regulated), so I sometimes forget to clarify when I’m talking just about marijuana and when I’m talking about the bigger picture.]

Further update: Mark clarifies his position for the record:

“No, that’s not right. Even for the drugs I’d still like to see prohibited, I’m no longer a believer in user sanctions except for people convicted of non-drug crimes. HOPE and related programs are for property and violent felons, not for drug possessors.”

That’s a good clarification to know.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Scary Medical Marijuana

  1. Pingback: Scary Medical Marijuana - Drug WarRant - StoneyMontana

  2. Pococurante says:

    Pete, I don’t understand your point. Are you defending fraudulent behavior?

    Kleiman put out numbers showing that not surprisingly folks are gaming a prescription system for recreational use.

    The guy is obviously for decriminalization for both medical and recreational use. Why does he have to support fraudulent behavior?

    I regularly drive over the speed limit and roll the occasional stop sign but it would never occur to me to say we should as a society ignore road laws.

    • claygooding says:

      I don’t think the couch is supporting illegal behavior except for marijuana laws and anyone that supports them for ANY reason. If you know how marijuana was prohibited using racial bigotry and lies then you should understand that we are required as patriots to disobey any and all laws that support that policy.
      And to disrespect anyone that supports the policy,,which Kleiman does. If you follow his postings he has always considered marijuana users as 2nd class citizens.

    • darkcycle says:

      You don’t get to cry “fraudulent”. Sorry. In each individual instance, a patient met with a doctor, and a doctor used his judgment in recommending a medication (cannabis) for a condition. Unless you are privy to that conversation and the medical records of that patient, all you have is your personal opinion. And don’t tell me that the doctors are running Pot prescription mills, OF COURSE THEY ARE. Most physicians will not write a rec, for ANY condition. In fact these Doctors COUNT on those mills being there for their patients (because it saves them the extra scrutiny that writing cannabis recs brings on). The insurance co’s won’t touch a doctor who writes recs., so if your guy takes insurance, you NEED to find a pot doc.
      I was a recreational pot smoker all through high school and most of college. I stopped when I started my career, and didn’t smoke for two decades. I came back to it because I have chronic wasting and had dropped to fucking 118 lbs.
      So, if you had asked me in college, I would likely have supported Medical solely on the basis of wanting it legal. Now, I need it, it’s stopped the weight loss, and I have a semblance of a normal life (instead of spending two days a week in bed vomiting into a bucket)

    • Pete says:

      Prococurante –

      First off, you may want to check your facts. I’m not aware that there’s a prescription system for marijuana, since I believe that would strangely have to involve the federal government. I think it’s a “recommendation” system.

      As far as gaming the system for recreational use, assuming that is happening then it’s certainly preferable to me than buying from the black market. It’s not like they’re just not going to smoke marijuana.

      Regarding speed laws… I think you agree with me. When you speed, you are “gaming” the system. You know that you can drive about 7 miles over the speed limit on expressways (at least that’s the number I use) without getting in trouble. That’s similar to what some people may be doing in their Interpretation of medical marijuana. It’s a bending of the laws, knowing that there’s only so far that the government is willing or able to enforce. And just like I think that 7 miles over the speed limit is safe, those who may find a lesser malady to treat with medical marijuana also know that it is safe.

      • Pococurante says:

        Let’s be clear: you’re criticizing a guy who is actively making it possible for people to purchase cannabis for both medical and recreational use because…

        … because he points out a high rate of fraud and doesn’t personally like it.

        I don’t understand the circular firing squad here sometimes. How many folks do you think get hired to make cannabis acceptable when they go around praising fraud.


        • darkcycle says:

          You didn’t point out anything LIKE a high rate of fraud. The numbers Kleiman cites, and that you seem to take as proof, indicate nothing of the sort. You took those numbers and ran with them, like Kleiman did. You gave your unsupported OPINION, admit it.
          And BTW, read that thread, I’m not the only one who has pointed that out, and pointed to the reasons those numbers exist.

        • Pete says:

          Pococurante – I regularly praise Kleiman when he makes sense. He’s a smart guy and has the ear of a lot of people. It also means that I hold him to a higher standard than say, idiots like Kevin Sabet. It’s important not to let him get away with demeaning progressive efforts with nonsense like this post. It’s not a circular firing squad. It’s keeping him honest.

          Fraud? You want to talk about fraud, then lets discuss the last 40+ years of the drug war that has been waged on the American people by its government. What Kleiman seems to have his panties in a bunch about is that people who were already smoking marijuana now are somehow finding a way to… smoke marijuana.

        • claygooding says:

          FRAUD,,you mean by MMJ patients,,I think you should re-read my first post,,the government made fraud legal on anything marijuana in 1937.

    • strayan says:

      Prococurante –

      Do you think doctors should be allowed to recommend coffee to patients without having the DEA breathing down their neck or being labelled fraudulent prescribers by Mark Kleiman (nevermind the fact they’re not prescribing anything)?

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Doggone it, the wiggle dude forgot to lock the door…again.

    • Fraudulent behavior on the part of the American Government and its paid minions has caused marijuana’s illegal status and its success in being entrenched as a schedule one drug. I can understand the ultra conservative attitude of anyone who has contributed to it.

      I can also understand a group of American colonists throwing a bunch of tea overboard. Gaming a medical marijuana system doesn’t seem like a violation of any American value that I know of. The value of the fears upon which its illegality depends were invented by men of lower moral scruples than anyone gaming a medical marijuana system. About the same amount of wrong as the occasional roll through the stop sign if you ask me.

      Mark is a horrendous conservative prude.

    • DdC says:

      Yea, what they said!

    • damaged justice says:

      “What you mean ‘we’, paleface?”

    • Freeman says:

      Pococurante – I don’t understand your point, or Kleiman’s.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Mark’s article about his conjecture that some people in COLORADO seem to be getting medical marijuana when they don’t really need it for a medical condition? And didn’t COLORADO just pass a law legalizing marijuana for all adults for any reason which is in the process of being implemented right now? Seems to me like you two are complaining about a problem that has already been addressed and will very soon become a non-problem (or do you think people will still “game the system” when they could otherwise just stop by the local pot shop without paying for a medical recommendation first)?

      You might as well complain that Granny Clampett claimed “for medicinal purposes only” when she hit the jug, when the contents of the jug were legal even if she didn’t really need it for her rhumatiz. Those hillbillies — they’re so dishonest!!!

      And that right there is the crux of the biscuit — our point. Once again, Kleiman takes a cheap shot at legalizers and tries to paint them (us) as fundamentally dishonest, this time with a completely moot argument. If you read him regularly, you’ll find that he does this a lot. You’ll also find that he regularly downplays the dishonesties of those who support prohibition (including his own — like “nobody gets sent to prison for getting high”).

      “Why does he have to support fraudulent behavior?” Don’t ask us, ask him. But he sure does support a heapin’ helping of it.

    • Rick Steeb says:

      An unjust law is NO law. For any physician to leave hir pot-smoking patient with the “stigma of criminality” for want of a rec is violating hir Hippocratic oath. The prime fraudulent behavior is the continued prohibition of the safest and most widely beneficial herb known to mankind.

  3. Dennis Pielack says:

    He who pays gets his way. Money in the hands of prejudice will buy its own prejudice. Marijuana has been portayed as harmfull by certain special interests, and government saw the profit in it to increase government, so marijuana was made a crime to exist in the possession of anyone except law-enforcement for the profit of the few. The prejudice and profit of marijuana use is now slipping away from those evil forces who would call something natural and good,cannabis, as evil and harmfull and its possession criminal and punishable with prison and forfeiture of property. America is discovering our government will lie to us for its own ends, and worse, it will destroy families and lives as collateral damage to its own political ends. But the People are wiser and more aware than the government had hoped, and marijuana is discovered to be a valuable health aid, and a component of individual and communal spirituality, and an enduring symbol of freedom, as well as many other things to many other people. So, unless the government resorts to military action against the People, intellegence and sound reason will eventually overcome the evil in the hearts of the marijuana prohibitionists to feel “right” about persecuting their neighbor for their use of marijuana. Then the People will be able to worship the GOD, YHVH, Who Biblicly stated HE created it all, and that must mean marijuana, in the Spirit and Truth HE said HE desires to be worshiped, and then possibly secure those blessings to the People and our Country.

  4. DonDig says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: What (societal or other) benefit does anyone think the criminal justice system provides regarding pot use? If someone is having a hard time, has medical reasons, or even just enjoys pot without having a hard time in life, using the herb for whatever reason, let ’em.
    Life isn’t made better as a result of jail time, or any involvement with the criminal justice system.
    I think it’s a case of addiction to the invidious and pompous ‘we know what’s better for you than you do’ saw.

  5. Cannabis says:

    There’s their “third way:” abject disgust at both sides, while profiting off of the system as it is.

  6. Of course Kleiman is upset, he is the mayor of tinker-town, and MM is not run in accordance with whatever pipe-dream way he pines for. For someone who claims to favor legalization of marijuana he sure has some misplaced hostility for attempts to liberalize our draconian pot laws.

  7. Pingback: Conspiracy News! | Scary Medical Marijuana – Drug WarRant

  8. Res ipsa loquitur says:

    Does this mean that I have to explain why I put the word “expert” in scare quotes when I’m referring to Prof. Kleiman and the rest of the prohibitionist parasites?

    • allan says:

      I included almost that exact same thing in my comment on mark’s post. Grape mines stink alike.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        Well unfortunately my doctor recommends that I avoid being anywhere in the vicinity of the work product of total assholes as I have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and even less tolerance for the assholes who call their road apples “facts” while specifically refusing to consider eyewitness testimony. As a result I’ve only been over to read Prof. Kleiman’s self congratulatory circle jerk twice this year, once by accident. I’m not sure why in the heck Google would mistake a manure farm for a news outlet. I think their search algorithm needs tweaking.

  9. NorCalNative says:

    It is possible that Mark Kleiman has no knowledge of the endocannabinoid system?

    If he did, he wouldn’t be spouting this bullshit.

    Hemp for Industry, and cannabis for health!

  10. I wonder if Mark plays red and black at the same time when he goes to a roulette table at a casino?

  11. allan says:

    man, reading the comments over there and it’s like some folks have no respect for the work(?) of Mr Kleiman. At least he’s not complaining about a flag made of hemp.

  12. N.T. Greene says:

    Is Mark always that bloody agitated when dealing with comments?

    I am pretty sure others in a similar position would lose their hats for failing to deal with dissent with poise.

    • darkcycle says:

      Naw, it’s his personal Blog, and he runs it like a dictator. And he’s a condescending hypocrite who can never admit when he’s been spanked.

      • N.T. Greene says:

        It is still coming from a man in high places. Personal blog or not, it seems as though he intends for others to read it… his cohorts included.

      • claygooding says:

        I didn’t get an answer from him,,never do since my first run in with him and he was starting to attack the sender instead of the message and then disappeared,,too many facts that were facts were more than he could bear. Or my drawl pissed him off.

      • divadab says:

        You know, I say hats off to Mark Kleiman for keeping his blog open and not shutting critics out. And for engaging in the conversation.

        I agree he seems a bit bad-tempered, but on reflection I think he may be more provoking responses.

        Crap article, though. Remember he has to please the prohibitionist stakeholders in his efforts also. There’s a scripture on this – “no man may serve two masters”.

        • darkcycle says:

          I disagree. He’s a prima donna. He used to reply to my input seriously, until I bested him once in an exchange, where he Poo-Poo’d the drop in juvenile crime after Cali’s decriminalization law was enacted. All his regulars sided with me on that one, and since that time, he only replies to my comments with snark (I actually believe he HAS engaged me, but has only done so as “anonymous” since then). He also seems to have something of a vindictive streak….I have never been able to continence vindictiveness. It is the SMALLEST, most petty response a person can have.

        • divadab says:

          @dc – Kleiman is an academic – and there’s an old saw in this regard:

          Q: “Why are University politics so vicious?”
          A: “Because the stakes are so low”.

          So he’s vindictive? Occupational hazard in his profession, especially when combined with a political consultancy. It’s still a good thing he keeps his blog open to comments, regardless of his attachment to douchiness.

        • allan says:

          I’m with you divi… after all these years of prohibs hiding behind a no comment wall on their wwwebsites, at minimum Mark’s leaving his blogs open to comments is a step in our direction – open public discussion. I’ve whined about and at the prohibs’ predilection for scurrying from the lights like so many cucarachas.

          And where better to fling the straightest and sharpest arrows in our quivers? Mark has a high profile and plenty of support in circles few here are part of.

          I strongly suspect we’ll change more of Mark’s supporters minds than they ours. After all, we have the truth, they have Prohibition.

  13. N.T. Greene says:

    And I hope he moseys over to the couch to try a bit of his ever-classy “damage control”.

    Want my advice, Mark? If you’re going yo say things that open up a wellspring of resistance, close your comments.

  14. claygooding says:

    The AP is still pushing the concentrates strength issue but I think they figured out that regulating marijuana thc levels did not determine the concentrate’s strength but the amount the plant would yield,,couldn’t get them to understand that when you chemically strip thc from a plant and remove the stripping agent the product is as close to pure thc as you can get. The high produced by hash oil is mostly a straight thc high much like Marinol and can cause some people to become paranoid and a little depressed.
    That is the reason I don’t like bubble hash near as much as I do kief hash produced by manual thc removal and it is because some of the plant matter is always present and makes the kief hash taste better plus adds some other cannabinoids which make the high better,,too me.
    I finally figured out on the bubble hash to take a couple of grams of good bud turned to dust and mixed back into the oil just before it stopped running on the plate made it taste much better and the buzz more like the kief hash buzz.

    Now I got a craving for some kief,,,and nothing dry to get any from.

    • darkcycle says:

      Hash bags. Best bubble hash comes from fresh-frozen trimmings. Freeze ’em fresh and wet.

      • claygooding says:

        that is probably the purest thc hash,,I enjoy the hash with a little plant matter mixed in,,the taste and the buzz is better to me.
        It took me a few years to find out how they used to form kief into hash soles and I knew it had to be simple because they have been doing it for thousands of years,,they heat a big flat rock over a fire,,shape their sole with a hemp rope and fill it with kief,,then place another heated flat rock on top and melt the thc in the kief into bonding with each other and the plant matter. The guy explained that the harder the hash was after cooking the more thc there was in it. I love National Geographic channel cause you learn the important stuff.

  15. ezrydn says:

    I’m an “Agent Orange” patient. I derived Ischemic Heart Disease from it. Had a 6-way bypass in 2000. Today, and every day since, I smoke both, tobacco included. Cardio Doc told me I’d die in my sleep within 3 years. That was 6 years ago. What’s keeping me alive? Maybe I shouldn’t change anything I’m doing! Markie probably thinks I belong in a cage somewhere.

    • claygooding says:

      I had 4 stints put in in 95 from the same thing and when the VA found out about it they did a physical,got the doctors name that put the stints in and started sending me 30% disability,,,which is how I am able to kick some advocate groups pennies once in awhile.
      Who knew that the only job we couldn’t quit from would be a rock to have for ammo later?

  16. Tony Aroma says:

    Since when do quotes mean scary? I always thought the quotes around “medical marijuana,” or just around “medical,” meant something more like it wasn’t taken seriously. Liked the term was being used sarcastically, or with a wink and some snickering. I had no idea that all this time they’d been trying to scare me. I’m so embarrassed. But still not scared.

  17. Francis says:

    If you create a system where telling a little white lie will greatly reduce a person’s risk of being victimized by the violence of the state, don’t be surprised when lots of people tell that little white lie. And if you find that “dishonesty” so offensive that you need to fret about it, I’d suggest your priorities are misplaced, but in any event, be sure to direct your ire at the violence that caused it.

  18. Freeman says:

    Saw some real good comments over there from the usual suspects over here. Of course, you just can’t edjamecate someone who already thinks he knows it all. Poor Mark is still “puzzled that anyone should want to pretend that this doc isn’t way over the line.” Imagine, if you will, a man without a clue.

    And it gets worse: I just realized that he badly mangled his math:

    Mark needs either a math lesson or one in ethics. The CO MMJ law was passed in 2000. The 8400 number was “as of October 2012″, but Mark’s math assumes all 8400 recommendations were made in a single year. Over the 12 year history of Colorado MMJ the per-patient time comes to almost 3 hours according to Mark’s formula.

    • Freeman says:


      … Or I need to read up on CO MMJ policy. I didn’t find it in the report Mark linked to, but upon further investigation at the state’s website, I learned that the MMJ card must be renewed annually which requires recertification by the doctor, which apparently involves a physical exam. Mark’s math is fine and I need to re-examine the ethics of snarking away before gathering all the facts.

      I hate it when that happens!

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Did anyone ask him about cancer chemotherapy drugs? There’s only a handful of doctors who write those prescriptions because those chemotheray drugs have a significantly high number of heinous side effects, including death. Those prescriptions go to the highly trained oncology doctors because of the risk. I do mean the risk to the doctor’s pocketbook, not the risk to the patient.

      One other question: Where are the ambulance chasers? How is it that not a single pot doc has been sued for malpractice for issuing the recommendation for medicinal cannabis? It sure isn’t because there’s a shortage of ambulance chasers in California. I find the absence of such lawsuits compelling supporting evidence for the assertion that cannabis is not dangerous as a medicine. In almost all cases I really do hate invisible evidence but on occasion the absence of something is very significant. In 17 years not even one patient got put into “treatment” for the fiction of merrywanna addiction and later tried to pick the pocket of the pot doc? How about trying to play the “gateway” theory card because the person subsequently went into “treatment” for heroin/opioids/cocaine/meth?

  19. Hope says:


    I love it.

    • allan says:

      hey you! So nice to see you dear lady… let’s move those pizza boxes outta the way soz you can sit.

      We’ve come a long way Ms Hope… this is where we used to imagine ourselves being – sitting on the cusp of legalization – lo’ those many years ago, eh?

      • Hope says:

        I’m here everyday, or certainly, nearly so. Delighting in Pete’s wonderful writing and opinions and listening to what you guys have to say about it all. Following our Infantry, that has grown so unbelievably much and with such understanding and the ability to articulate what we need articulated, and that’s spread out over the internet to take the prohibitionists on, keyboard to keyboard. Our progression into ending the deaths, the raids, and all the terrible injustice of the war on drugs and the war on cannabis is a lovely thing to see. We’re rolling. We’re really rolling. You guys are doing a wonderful job.

  20. DdC says:

    Erowid Center ‏@erowid 15 Jul
    Survey in journal Psychiatrists: 51% of psychiatrists in US would prescribe #cannabis in some circumstances

    Alex Stevens ‏@AlexStevensKent 17h
    Study of cannabis and psychosis: ‘there is no evidence to support the logic underpinning the 2009 move to Class B’

    Elaine : The gear is down and we’re ready to land.
    Towerguy: Captain,
    maybe we ought to turn on the search lights now.
    MCrosky: No, thats just what they’ll be expecting us to do…

    Study: Marijuana Use Associated With
    Decreased Symptoms Of Opiate Withdrawal
    In Methadone Maintenance Treatment Subjects

    So of coarse we’ll assist them in decreasing symptoms.
    No, thats just what they’ll be expecting us to do

  21. DdC says:

    Erowid Center ‏@erowid 16 Jul
    In addition to being thinner, #marijuana users were more healthy overall than those who had never used.

    House OKs Hemp Research

    Pot Moms of Beverly Hills
    & “Red”-Hot Helen Mirren!
    Airing on July 19, 2013
    Meet the marijuana mommas of Beverly Hills and hear why they say smoking cannabis makes them better moms and business women.

    Erowid Center ‏@erowid 15 Jul
    Pro #cannabis activists in Gottingen Germany planted lbs of seeds across city–now sprouting everywhere.

  22. strayan says:

    Why am I getting DdC’s twitter feed?

    There are some good links there, but I have a separate app for that kind of thing.

    What is your twitter handle so I can follow you?

    • DdC says:

      I don’t know much about twitter. I’ve had @DendeCannabist for a couple years but only sent my first tweet last month. I get a lot of different tweets I don’t follow and I follow about 40. I’m not sure who gets the ones I send, except replies. At first I thought it was useless due to the limit but it sends urls and many different sources on one page so it cuts down searching each site. I like it now.

  23. Duncan20903 says:


    I just can’t decide whether to be happy or sad about the “latest” “survey” which shows only 40% in favor of re-legalizing cannabis for people over age 21. While 40% sounds really rotten I’d think that with just a little more effort The Partnership at clould have gotten that number below 25%. Crimeny, take look at the results for those other survey questions! 50% in favor of decriminalization and 70% in favor of medicinal cannabis. Man, there’s no doubt that the wheels are coming off the prohibitionists’ delivery vehicle.

    Well I thought it was gone forever, but there’s that damn fried egg. You’ll have to excuse me now. I’m off to Denny’s for a plate of fried eggs. All right now, let’s see a show of hands – is there anyone reading this who’da thunk we’d ever see these idiots act as if re-legalization is inevitable?

    Back on topic: The Partnership at is a registered non-profit “educational” organization.


    Oh my god, what about the lab rats? Doesn’t anyone care about the lab rats?
    Direct from fantasy land:

    Matt Ragon | July 16, 2013 at 11:16 am

    We know these drugs are harmful. Harming rats to prove it is wrong!!!!!!

    I really must disabuse myself of the thought that the sycophants of prohibition are scraping the bottom of the stupid barrel.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I would really like to locate the “brain scan” of a guy who choose to enjoy cannabis which was featured in a “public service announcement” which the Partnership for a Truth Free America produced. You know the one I mean, where it was discovered that the owner of that particular brain was in a coma totally unrelated to his choosing to enjoy cannabis. TIA!

    • kaptinemo says:

      Back on topic: The Partnership at is a registered non-profit “educational” organization.

      The vast majority of ‘foundations’ in this country have been set up, by one corp or another, as nothing more than lobbying arms for those corps…and bloody little else.

      Google the following:

      Norman Dodd Reece Committee

      and you’ll never look at foundations in the same way again. The names change, but the game remains the same.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        umm, that was supposed to be a joke kaptin, which is why the word “educational” was in “scare” quotes. Minus the quotes that is how they describe their organization.

        I guess that one was a wee bit too arcane.

  24. Howard says:

    Mr. Kleiman has a SERIOUS job. He must — as a part of his contract — proceed with SERIOUS cautiousness. He must furrow brow and stroke beard while putting medical marijuana in “scare quotes” (see what I did there?). He must point out the fraud, “kush docs” must make him queasy. The bureaucrats who hired him have to be comforted to know how SERIOUS he takes his job. Kleiman has his foot on the brake just enough to slightly counteract the gas pedal, otherwise the will of the voters will take hold way too soon. And willy-nilly at that! The bureaucrats are ever hopeful that more SERIOUSNESS from Kleiman will undercover more things to worry about and, therefore, require more tight-fisted regulation or delayed implementation, or both. If Kleiman is really up to the task, more “scare quotes” are coming. Otherwise, how can he be taken, you know, SERIOUSLY?

  25. claygooding says:

    The Texas Democratic party has come onboard!!!

    If this turns Texas blue that should be a pretty strong message,,hey?

    • Howard says:

      Clay, When I click on the link there is no specific information/video describing in what way “the Texas Democratic party has come on board.” Is this different from the 2012 platform change adding cannabis decriminalization? Is there a different link to this story? Likely user error on my part. Any clarification is appreciated.

      • claygooding says:

        there was no date at msnbc however it has to bee recent because the other video clips are,,the ad lasts 30 seconds before and when I copied it above it went to the next vido because I didnt copy it while it wa still playing,,try this one:

        • B. Snow says:

          In that Video Clip (@about 2:50) he (O’Donnell) does misread the quote shown in the graphics package (on-screen) from the 2012 Texas Democratic Party platform:
          “legislation to decriminalize”… as “legalization to decriminalize”…

          BUT, it’s quite easy to understand why he misspoke while reading it = Because, in that 2012 Democratic Party Platform position/statement, “Decriminalization” was effectively/essentially “Legalization”.

          Because in that platform removing criminal penalties would be just that Decriminalizing Marijuana = not just making it a civil violation – In TExas when we do something we don’t tend to F*ck Around with half-measures, like “The Governator” did In California. IOW, removing the “crime” from something would make it “legal” = No Bullshit involved. Although that clip is from LAST June = 2012…

          But, w/ Gov. Perry calling a 2nd special session of the State Senate in order to ham-fist that 20 week Abortion Ban & *[They must all be done (essentially) in a facility that meets full hospital regulations {“the hallways must be ‘X’ wide”, janitor’s closets must be- whatever…} rather than a regular outpatient facility like a great many medical procedures are safely done] Bill.

          After they’d pretended they weren’t going to try that this year — and after Texas State Senator Wendy Davis filibustered the bill in the 1st ‘special session’ & she did a REAL Filibuster. = Perry has effectively caused a rally among Texas Democrats, so the Dem. Party platform may matter again = soon, the demographics are changing here quick! And, Wendy Davis may just run for Governor = I really think she could win, Texas women don’t like politicians messing with their State = NOR their bodies!

  26. Jean Valjean says:

    Got an email today from ACLU in which Laura Murphy asks me to sign a petition to end racial profiling re Trayon Martin.
    Well that’s good, except there is no mention of how not ending the drug war just might have something to do with racial profiling, in fact might just be the mother of all racial profiling.

  27. claygooding says:

    Allan,,more on the 1974 UofVA medical study on shrinking tumors and where you can still get a copy:

    Cannabinoids,” an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute-and author Raymond Cushing obtained a copy at the UC Medical School Library in Davis, California, and faxed it to Madrid. The 1975 article does not mention breast cancer tumors, which were featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study in the local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. The headline read, “Cancer Curb Is Studied,” and was followed in part by, “The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered. The researchers found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

    • claygooding says:

      “Cancer Curb Is Studied,” gets a “no results huffpo,,dang it. Took the scare off and got 11 pages plus,,this could take awhile

    • allan says:

      here’s the only piece I’ve ever seen on the ’74 Virginia Med College cannabis/cancer story:

      • claygooding says:

        supposedly the University of California medical school library in Davis has a copy of the summary filed on the study done in VA or did have and it was faxed to Madrid which means Madrid has the summary also.
        It means we still have no physical proof before our eyes but it is enough people and links to convince me it happened,,proof positive would be the summary and then find if an author or co-author still lives and could verify the study,,I suppose.

        • claygooding says:

          You have to pay to search the Wapo archives,,dang it.

        • allan says:

          yeah clay, there’s a lot of discussion about it out there, but no real “it.” (just quotes, not scary)

          One of these days I’m going to do an interview w/ an oncologist and ask about this, ask about why no one is in arms, why cancer docs and patients aren’t outraged. So many decades of repeated dognmatic propaganda apparently has taken a definite toll.

          Good news for me – CannabisNow Mag has me writing for them again. My next piece will be on the ACLU pot and race report, out in the late summer/early fall issue I believe…

          It’s a shame in a way, but it’s a subscription only mag. My piece in their 2011 issue 2 was damn good, made sooo much better by a great page layout – Mexican Drug War – Free the Weed, pg 10. I also have some photos in that edition and an interview with Cheryl Miller who runs one of the local patient resource orgs, the Compassion Center.

          Jeremy Daws is their new editor-in-chief.

  28. Chip says:

    The bother is over the Police state not being willing to acknowledge that IT is the crime. WTP were “deemed” by the legislative shills to be children, incompetent to be sovereign and self regulating. Personally, I think that anyone who got caught up in the dope crime game and lost his time rotting in a cell or forced to kneel at the “dock” of an agency monarch ought to be compensated generously. And the scumbags who aided and abetted the war on drugs need to go to the end of the breadline. Think attorneys, cops, court personnel and prison workers. I Dream of a free world.

    • Windy says:

      Don’t forget the Peoples’ “representatives” in congress who refuse to acknowledge the absolute unconstitutionality of the “laws” which created the drug war and violate every single person’s right to self-ownership and self-determination. Also SCOTUS, which refuses to acknowledge that those “laws” ARE unconstitutional and keeps allowing the law enforcement agencies to violate ever more of our rights with impunity (not to mention that ALL fed gov law enforcement agencies are blatantly unconstitutional). Those deserve vilification, too.

  29. Mark A.R. Kleiman says:

    So where does that leave Mark Kleiman? After all, he doesn’t like either side, really. He is for a specific limited approach to legalizing marijuana, but he is also in favor of maintaining prohibition in order to insure swift penalties for those who are unable to control their drug use.

    False. I’ve never said anything like that. I have said that, for alcohol, there should be a specific prohibition for people who have committed crimes under the influence of alcohol. I’d be willing to extend that to cannabis if cannabis turned out to present similar behavioral problems.

    Perhaps you disagree. You’re entitled to dispute my views, but not to misrepresent them. But since you approve of physicians telling lies, it’s not surprising that you give yourself permission to do so.

    A retraction and apology would be welcome, but I don’t really expect you to have the manhood to offer them.

    • Pete says:

      I apologize, Mark. I was unclear in my post. In my mind, I had already moved on from merely talking about marijuana to discussing the larger picture of legalization and prohibition in general, but I realize that the transition was not clear in my post.

      When I talked about you, I specified marijuana for the first part (true, you are for limited approaches to legalizing marijuana), but was referring to the larger drug legalization picture in general in the second part (maintaining prohibition in order to insure swift penalties…) – I got that directly from your strong interest in HOPE and related types of programs.

      I assume that you would agree with that. If not, please let me know. I will adjust the post to reflect that.

      Thanks for showing your class, as usual.

      • darkcycle says:

        Attacking your “manhood”? (note the scare quotes) Yeah. Real class. Without the “CL”.

        • allan says:

          oh, I don’t think Pete missed it at all… looks to me like he meant just what he said – “Thanks for showing your class […]”

          or lack of…

    • allan says:

      hmmm… Mark, are you setting yourself up to be the next drug kzar? Sounds like it would be right up your alley and you could be the new “kindler, gentler” drug kzar. Your… ummm… work in WA makes a nice feather in your cap for such a position.

  30. Mark A.R. Kleiman says:

    No, that’s not right. Even for the drugs I’d still like to see prohibited, I’m no longer a believer in user sanctions except for people convicted of non-drug crimes. HOPE and related programs are for property and violent felons, not for drug possessors.

    • allan says:

      Good on you for stopping in Mark. Of course you saying things like drugs I’d still like to see prohibited here raises more than my eyebrows I’m sure. While Pete’s post following yours was about mmj, Prohibition doesn’t work for any drug/activity/belief. Especially in a world with 7 billion people… and those 7 billion people by and large are experiencing gross domestic breakdowns in government and civility.

      Heck Detroit just declared bankruptcy – a city once 2 million strong now less than 3/4 million can’t pay its bills, its workers… how can they pay for the Prohibition of anything?

      Prohibit malnutrition and starvation. Prohibit nuclear weapons. Prohibit corruption… a few drugs hardly rank as an affordable problem.

Comments are closed.