It’s a new day

When someone running for Congress is advertising in this way, we know that there’s been a sea change in public opinion.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to It’s a new day

  1. strayan says:

    Corrosive, destructive, life destroying, decimating, racist.

    That is the prohibition I know.

  2. Awesome. Here is a video that is a perfect example of what he is talking about.

    Smart money says you will see a lot of this type of campaigning in 2016

    • strayan says:

      Lots of ‘third way’ prohibitionists (Sabet, Humphreys etc) like to downplay the harms of cannabis prohibition by saying things like, ‘hardly anyone goes to jail for marijuana possesion’.

      What they tend to gloss over is the devastating impact of mere arrest. This video destroys their BS.

    • jean valjean says:

      its what we ve come to expect from the nypd but i would have expected more justice from the board of ed. i hope the aclu sues on his behalf. it would be interesting to see this officers arrests for that month to see if making quota was an issue.

  3. Frank W says:

    Be aware it’s the kind of campaigning Obama did before he got elected. Let that be a lesson of a sort.

    • Howard says:

      But you have to admit that much has changed since 2008. Even in lagging indicator states, such as Texas where I live, long calcified attitudes are beginning to shift. On the front page of my local paper this morning is this headline;

      Poll: Texans back treatment, rehab programs over prison

      From the article: “… the latest indication of a significant about-face by voters on the issue in recent years”. And “… 84% of all likely voters contacted favor alternative-to-prison programs for nonviolent drug offenders…”.

      Yes, for most commenters on this site, this is so 1990’s (or 1980’s). And yes, it does sound like it’s right out of SAM’s or the ONDCP’s playbook. But Texas is a state where prisons have long been considered a growth industry. And a state where often any crime short of running a stop sign was met with, “String them up”.

      While the most exciting news regarding drug law reform in recent years have come from forward thinking states such as Colorado and Washington (and countries such as Uruguay), it does pay to watch the subtle changes that are happening in more rigid states. A recent poll out of Indiana now reveals that 52% favor regulating marijuana like alcohol. Hoosiers!

      • claygooding says:

        My teller at the bank asked me where to get information on how to use cannabis for her health issues,,this is a First Baptist Church type lady,,,,times are changing.

  4. Jeff Trigg says:

    If he wins, he’s one of 435 in the US House. 100 more in the US Senate. Tens and tens of thousands of state, county and local elected officials before you get to their politically appointed corrections, police, judges, investigators, parole boards, and the like. It’s a ripple, at least.

    Libertarians and Greens have been saying what he does for the past 30 years. Do you got another 30 years for the Rs and Ds to catch up? Because history proves that’s about how long it will take the two dominant parties to get their heads out of their asses. Slavery, suffrage, segregation, it took decades for the two power parties to change their minds.

    Also, too bad he doesn’t live in the district he’s trying to represent. You want to win the war on drugs before the Rs and Ds get around to changing their minds? Then you gotta walk precincts, over and over, for years to get the right people into elected offices from the ground up.

    • Yes, but how long does it take if you never start? You don’t have to replace everyone to change their tune and shift the direction of the tide. Believe me, this is getting uncomfortable for quite a few of those phoney stuffed shirts.

      This is an unprecedented grass roots movement. I don’t think its reached its height yet. The incumbents ignore it at their own peril.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        Well nobody is more surprised than I am but I actually kind of feel sorry for the sycophants of prohibition. They have to be totally lost, totally unable to figure out what the hell happened. I’d suggest some kind of publicly provided re-orientation for them but their skulls are so thick in addition to being brain free. It would just be a waste of money.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        No personal offense intended, but I typically speak my mind without much regard.

        “Yes, but how long does it take if you never start?”

        Oh, it’s started, and you know that. This great website from Pete is evidence of that. Ten years ago I was walking door to door willing and able to talk about drug legalization and candidates they could vote for who believed likewise. It started long before me.

        “You don’t have to replace everyone to change their tune and shift the direction of the tide.”

        Perhaps not, but in Illinois where I’m at, and some of the other places I’ve lived and experienced, you do HAVE TO replace a vast majority of them. The last two Illinois Governors went to prison. Its still business as usual, pay to play, sweetheart deals, more debt, in Illinois. Michael Madigan, Lisa Madigan, Ed Burke and his Supreme Court wife, the Cullerton clan, the Daleys, felons running and winning elections, and on and on, same corruption as always, you can’t shift the direction of their tide until their dynasties are gone. Popular opinion? Popular opinion will always be ahead of the politicians with power. Human history proves that.

        “Believe me, this is getting uncomfortable for quite a few of those phoney stuffed shirts.”

        Name one. In the state I know best, I couldn’t name one single elected official who is made uncomfortable electorally by the issue of cannabis legalization, let alone drug legalization. There isn’t anyone in the state of Illinois at risk of losing their elected office because of their stance on drugs. I never saw that in Washington, California, or Tennessee, but perhaps your state is different. Is there anyone in America who stands to lose an election because of their stance on cannabis/drug legalization? Name one. There were for slavery, suffrage, segregation, and even alcohol prohibition back in the day. Just sayin’.

        “This is an unprecedented grass roots movement.”

        Sure, but largely because of technology and the internet. We have the opportunity to change minds, change votes, and change political parties like no one before us. Changing minds is absolutely easier than back then, and we’ve done well. Time will tell if we are willing to change our votes and change our political parties in order to get what we want, which is the end of the drug war.

        “The incumbents ignore it at their own peril.”

        For the past 30 years, more than 60% of incumbents for the state legislature in Illinois had NO opponents on the ballots. In 2014, it’ll most likely also be more than 60% without competition on the ballot. 60% of incumbents can ignore EVERYTHING, in my state. What about yours? Out of 177 Representatives and Senators for Illinois, maybe 5 to 10 of them will have an election within 8% of the vote (i.e. 54% to 46%), for the few that actually do have competition on the ballot.

        With cannabis legalization, we may finally have popular opinion on our side. I celebrate that. BUT, that means our work has only just begun, as we’ve seen from human history before us. Now, we need to knock on a LOT of fucking doors and finish the job. I guarantee you the police unions, prison guard unions, city/county service unions, attorneys offices, drug treatment center “contractors” and the like all know how to walk precincts and are willing and able to knock on doors to get their candidates elected. You want an incumbent to worry about their stance on drugs? Knock of every door in their district with a better candidate option, and that drug warrior might be uncomfortable.

        I’m not big on the positivity these days although it is necessary and beneficial. I’ve been in the trenches of political warfare, and know what it takes to win elections. Popular opinions barely matter.

  5. DdC says:

    President Obama Hosts Kennedy Center Honorees,
    Quips on Santana’s ‘Altered State of Mind’
    President Obama Quote: “Before Carlos Santana took the stage at Woodstock few people outside his hometown of San Francisco knew who he was, and the feeling was mutual: Carlos was in such a, shall we say, ‘altered state of mind,’ that he remembers almost nothing about the performance,” he joked.

    Santana – Soul Sacrifice 1969 “Woodstock” Live Video HQ

    Quips… Meanwhile Drug Czar Kerlikowski is scolding little Charlotte Figi for not just living with her 300 seizures a week, relieved with cannabis.

    You see what you did?
    You’re a bad little girl!

    Why it just elicits more Quippers…

    A Pot Editor Elicits Quips
    Mr. Baca’s newly created post became rich fodder for comedy writers and the media. On “Saturday Night Live,” an anchor on “Weekend Update” noted, “The Denver Post this week announced that they’re looking for a marijuana editor for their website. They have one. They’re just looking for him.” Stephen Colbert on his show asked Mr. Baca, “Are you a cop?” The website Mediabistro posted the job opening and encouraged applicants to “Roll up those résumés.” The British media gushed over the news, with The Independent calling the gig “arguably the best job in journalism” and a commenter on The Guardian exclaiming “Brilliant Denver!” and “liberal Yanks showing us Euros a thing or two.”

    • DdC says:

      Whoa horsey. We ain’t got rid of all dese varmints yet.

      Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism.
      Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.
      Noam Chomsky

      Cannabis Linked To Better Brain Function In Bipolar Patients #marijuana

      You know if this helps the bipolar inflicted, it’s just going to raise statistics on cannabis causing bipolar personalities. If schizophrenics find relief, it must cause schizophrenia. Are these drug war liars isolated in a loop of fantasy they actually can’t rationalize life. Maybe its true… Drugwar Lies Linked to Schizophrenia

      Dr. Oz Brings Reefer Madness Back to Daytime Television
      This week, Dr. Oz had a segment on his show about cannabis, asking the question, is it addictive?

      However, in an effort to get to the answer, the doctor created a circus of images and animations, and very little actual talk about science and outcomes

      Is cannabis addictive? According to Dr. Paula Riggs, who appeared on the Dr. Oz show as the voice of warning around cannabis, about 1 in 11 regular cannabis users will experience symptoms of addiction, namely, withdrawals and a persistent desire to use despite negatives life outcomes.

      The other guest was neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart who astutely asked the audience, “How many of you do caffeine?” Indeed, most of the audience applauded. He then asked, what would happen if you did not use it? You would get a headache. The point is, physical dependence on a substance is common in our society, and we accept it.

      Physical dependence on sugar, caffeine, nicotine, Ambien, Vicodin is considered part of life for adults who choose to or need to consume these substances. We accept the chance of addiction as a risk we are willing to take to enjoy coffee, or find pain relief from Vicodin. Dr. Hart framed it perfectly when he said that ANY activity that prevents someone from living their life to its fullest can be of concern, chemical or not.

      Howzabout jail doc, think that might limit ones ability to live life to the fullest?

    • Windy says:

      Quips on Santana’s ‘Altered State of Mind’
      President Obama Quote: “Before Carlos Santana took the stage at Woodstock few people outside his hometown of San Francisco knew who he was, and the feeling was mutual: Carlos was in such a, shall we say, ‘altered state of mind,’ that he remembers almost nothing about the performance,” he joked.

      I guess Obama was not well informed on Carlos Santana’s life. Carlos is from San Jose, not SF.

      One of our friends, sadly no longer with us (killed in a car MC accident many long years ago), was also from San Jose, he grew up with Carlos, knew him personally, hung around (and got stoned) with him when his band was still a garage band (there were photos to prove it) before our friend moved to WA.

  6. Dave in Florida says:

    This one will make your head spin..No comments allowed, I wonder why!

    • Jean Valjean says:

      If this is the same Michael Trimmer as the author of this extraordinary article, then it is clear his attitude towards cannabis is driven by religious bigotry. Here he is on the subject of gay rights (the bible says it’s a sin). Mike needs to grow up.

    • Paul McClancy says:

      From the article:

      “The previous defence of this position by pro-cannabis activists has been that people with psychotic symptoms often seek out cannabis as a means of dealing with their issues was debunked because many of these studies were longitudinal in nature, and controlled for groups of people with detectable psychotic symptoms.”

      Is there any truth to this, or is he pulling “facts” out if his ass? I’m serious, I’d like to know if this particular claim has any merit.

      • Pete says:

        The key there is “people with detectable psychotic symptoms.” We know so little about the disease — but we know it exists prior to noticing detectable symptoms. The fact that they found marijuana use prior to detectable symptoms doesn’t mean that marijuana led to psychosis or schizophrenia, but rather that the body was seeking self-medication for a disease that had no outward symptoms… yet.

        So yes, there were such studies, but they weren’t showing causation, but rather that we know little about the onset.

        Here’s the latest study:

        • Duncan20903 says:


          There’s also the point that people in the early stages of the disease who utilize cannabis will, on average, come to the attention of the authorities sooner than those who don’t utilize cannabis. The reality is that the average age for people to discover cannabis is perhaps a year younger than schizophrenics typically start to present systems. Toss in the widespread love of post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies combined with a baseless belief that cannabis causes bad things to happen to good people and the phenomenon is perfectly understandable.

          Paul, the easiest way to answer your question is to go look up the historical statistics for the number of schizophrenics in the population. when you get to 1975 it’s time to notice that the number is steady to slightly lower. Now consider the in excess of 1000% increase in the population of people who choose to enjoy cannabis that occurred during the 1960s. One simply does not see a 1000% increase the rate of incidence for the causal factor of anything without seeing a corresponding increase in the thing caused.

          This particular piece of hysterical rhetoric is particularly annoying to me. If you’re going to frackin’ lie to me don’t tell me lies that take 30 seconds to defeat. It makes me feel like you think I’m a total moron. If I’m going to get scammed I want it done by Bernie Madoff.

      • darkcycle says:

        To add to Pete’s point, Schizophrenics are aware that their thought processes are not normal long before any overt behavioral symptomology is observed. And they “compensate” for the abnormalities for as long as humanly possible. I can’t tell you how many times I have had psychotic patients reveal that they have always heard the “voices”, but at some time they became “louder (more insistent)” and impossible to ignore.
        For a more statistical refutation, it is notable that the rate of schizophrenia in the general population has held steady at about 1%. This has been true since it was delineated as an illness. However, since 1960, the use of cannabis has skyrocketed. Going from an estimated 1% of the population to forty or more percent. If there was a causal effect, there would be some discernible rise in the incidence of the condition, and there isn’t.

    • Artie says:

      Actually, comments appear to be open for that article (there were 13 when I just checked). All of the comments so far appear to be from our side of the issue, pointing out many of the lies in the piece.

Comments are closed.