Open Thread

Got a lot of stuff going on at work right now, so posting has been light for a couple of days.

Be sure to check the comments as there are always some good discussions going on around the couch.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Open Thread

  1. Servetus says:

    New research: marijuana protects the immune system against HIV and slow disease progression.

    New Rochelle, NY, February 18, 2014—New evidence that chronic intake of THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, can protect critical immune tissue in the gut from the damaging effects of HIV infection is reported in AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available on the AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses website.

  2. Windy says:

    I just wanted to share this. I wrote to the WA legislators on the bill reported in these threads earlier. I wrote:

    If you are in the House and you voted “yea” on this bill you ignored the voters’ (your constituents’) wishes and you WILL pay for that by losing your next election or even being recalled.

    If you are in the Senate you’d best vote against the bill or you will face the same result from the angry voters.

    I received two responses (so far) one from a Rep. who voted AGAINST the bill (I thanked him) and the other:

    Thank you for your message. As both a nurse and a legislator I have met with many patients who rely on medical marijuana for their health and quality of life. I absolutely agree that medical marijuana needs to continue to be accessible for the patients who need it. House Bill 2149 is an effort to ensure that patients continue to have access while addressing concerns that have been expressed by the federal government.

    I want to clarify the contents of House Bill 2149 because it has been amended significantly this session in response to concerns we have heard from patients and doctors from around the state.

    · HB 2149 does not limit the amount of marijuana a patient has access to; patients who need more than 3 ounces can get permission from their doctor to have more.

    · HB 2149 does allow for some stores throughout the state to serve only medical marijuana

    · HB 2149 does not eliminate home grows

    · HB 2149 creates a system of recognition cards that provide patients protection from arrest and prosecution

    The changes this bill makes align our state’s medical marijuana system with our recreational marijuana system—while respecting that these two uses couldn’t be more different.

    Discussions around this bill are ongoing. The bill will be amended every step of the way as the House and Senate work together to develop a plan. I hope you will continue to share your concerns with me throughout the negotiation process.

    Thank you again for your message.

    So I wrote back:

    The federal government has been prohibiting marijuana/cannabis unconstitutionally for 77 years. Since this federal prohibition IS unconstitutional*, the federal government’s “concerns” should NOT matter to the legislature, the citizens of our State, or to ANY American in any way, shape, or form.

    It certainly would be better for ALL Americans if you politicians actually understood the Constitution, its purpose and the limits it imposes on the government. Why don’t you? After all you DO take an oath to it. Shouldn’t you understand what that oath implies before you take it? And once you take that oath, shouldn’t you honor and keep it?

    As for the 4 things you listed about this bill:
    #1 Would you limit the amount of echinacea one can have in possession? of course not, that would be stupid, unconstitutional and just plain wrong. Well, it is just as stupid to limit the amount of marijuana one may have in one’s possession. There are no laws limiting the amount of alcoholic beverages and cigarettes one may have in one’s possession, either. Marijuana is safer than both (in fact it is safer than aspirin and water) so what kind of sense does it make to limit the amount of marijuana anyone may have in possession at any time? The answer to that of course is: IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, such a limit is completely illogical and arbitrary!

    #2 The bill does NOT allow for ENOUGH stores; take a look at Colorado and how they ran short in the beginning but the way they implemented their re-legalization allowed them to catch up with demand, and even with a tax only 1/6 the level of WA’s intent to impose on the crop at all three points they have made billions in taxes off the sales in just 7 weeks. WA has just as many regular users of both medical and recreational marijuana per capita as CO and look at how few grows and how few stores you and the WSLCB plan to allow. I guess we voters just cannot fix the stupid in our politicians. The black market is not going away anytime soon, thanks to your stupidity. Really, all this BS just makes it look as though you all are deliberately trying to make certain this whole “experiment” fails. Please look into the history, marijuana was not regulated, restricted, or banned before 1937, and there were NO problems — no “addicts (there are no addicts now, either), no problem users, no killing over access or turf, ANYONE could buy it (including children) but there were NO PROBLEMS!

    #3 It is good that home growing of this miraculous plant has not been taken away from medical users. The same freedom should be accorded to recreational users (or, again, you are NOT going to see any reduction in the black market or in illegal grows).

    #4 The registry is opposed by the vast majority of medical marijuana users. No person should have to be on registry for using ANY medication OR intoxicant, especially not a natural herbal medication. Patients see that as just one more way for the federal government to hassle those who use an absolutely safe medication (a medication which the fed gov opposes due to its hand in pocket relationship with the pharmaceutical and alcohol industries). How would you like to have to be on a registry in order to legally have alcohol in your home, or even have a drink in a bar or restaurant? Marijuana users are not even going to be allowed to have a bar or restaurant where they can imbibe in a social situation, but recreational use of marijuana is a truly social experience for most users. Would you encourage people to drink alone? Forcing marijuana users to smoke alone is just as bad, just as wrong. Does any of that indicate anything close to “freedom” or “liberty” to you? The kinds of rules you want to impose on Washingtonians are wrong and are alcoholcentric (biased in favor of forcing people to use alcohol, instead, for social intoxication. ALCOHOL, which is FAR more dangerous a substance for ANYONE to use at home, or especially away from home! My God, do any of you politicians actually USE your brain for anything? It is obvious you certainly do not think with your brains.

    *No amendment was ever passed and ratified to give the federal government the legitimate power to prohibit this substance, or any other ingestible — ergo, unconstitutional on its face.

    • Jose says:

      Windy, last time I sent similar correspondence to my rep I got a letter a about 3 months later informing me that the IRS would be auditing me. Coincidence? Who knows… I have not written since.

      • Windy says:

        I’m not at all worried about an IRS audit, we are on a fixed income and file taking the standard deduction, short form — nothing for them to audit. There are ways government could hassle me but taxes is not one of them. Thanks for the concern. I write to them at least once a week.

        Oh and btw, I cc’d the rest of the 18 legislators for whom I have an email addy and bcc’d all the local news outlets (paper and TV).

        • Pete Bulkner says:

          Then Wendy what the fuck makes your nonconformist ass should get a damn opinion. So “fixed” income. Get the hell out of my America you leeching drugged. Your opinions don’t count unless you pay taxes ,which should be solved by not allowing poor and middle class voti.g rights. They make retarded choices, but still you need to pay taxes. I’d say 87% of your income should go to taxes if you make less than $300,000 a year. Anything hirer then your taxes should be about -1% of your income & you can be allowed to vote.I’m sick of Nazi poor people fucking up my country ,go back to fucking hell where you belong. Fucking asshole. Quit assuming your have a right to write to the government. As for your drug use, we need to just nuke those states with “legal” and “medical” marijuana. Even DC, because the white house has a force-feild that blocks out drones nukes & such attacks. Except from liberal child molesters such as The ACLU, HRW,NORML,SSDP,all the wee die programs. Kill yerselve. You’ve committed genocide on Gods land. God wrote the construction of constitution,which was found by bible beliefs,Jesus died for my freedom
          and I’ll be damn if some snot nose,Jew dick bobbing ,Muslim jiehad homosexual butt pounder. Fucks up my Country. GET THE HELL OUTTA MY U.S. AMERICAN. PRAISE JESUS. KILL THESE SINNERS,THEN DAMN EM TO HELL.EHERE THEY CAN BE FORCE FED SATANS MASDIVE HARD THROBBING 36″ RED COCK

        • DdC says:

          Peetie. God Hates Bores. Yawn.

          Oh say it isn’t so… Oh Peetie your grand poobah is a GOPervert…

          Ted Nugent’s confessions on underaged girls… …

          What’s the German word for “having one’s head so far up one’s ass one is screwing one’s self”? Gotta be a word for it.
          Russ Belville ‏@RadicalRuss

          Its called Peetie Bulkner…

          Oh No Nancy…

          “There are more dispensaries in Denver than Starbucks!” Turns out they are no worse for neighborhoods than Starbucks.

          Peetie hates kids trying to keep them hooked on Pharmaceuticals and 300 seizures a week when Ganja has been known for decades to treat seizures, reducing them to 3 or 4 a month, and spasms. How many kids have you and your gossip kept sick peetie?

          Epilepsy Foundation Calls for Increased Medical Marijuana Access and Research #epilepsy #mmj

          Peetie you’re a FAKE American, a plastic pseudo patriot lapdog fool for the gipper. Another bore with a piss fetish, either trying to taste kids piss for drugs. Samples you hire someone to watch, so they don’t cheat. Or taking someone’s job that you can’t tell if they are using without a Pee Party. Weird mfers these drug worrier be. Aborting babies in the bible belt, for geeeeeeezus. Who didn’t inhale the hashish incense, held his breath for three days. Science says cannabis is safe but who the hell is this science guy. You know humanity arose from the mud made with spit. I believe you did dude. Swig that fermentation and close one eye to keep from seeing double lush. Lush Bush v Kush. lol

          So you FAKE son of a bitch jerking off the red white and blue while backstabbing blue collar white rednecks. Taking a dirt farmers cash crop to make stronger blue jeans that don’t abort bible belt babies crackerboy. Homegrown even beats yo daddy’s Obamacare. Jerk that Walmart flag made in China by some kid taking an Americans job. Made with plastic from fossil fools like you and Iraqi crude oil. Hey shitkicker, where the fuck you think China gets its oil? Dumbshit you were not only selling Bin Laden and Sadamn bullets, you were paying for them. Lapdog obedience depriving your endocannabinoid system for generations of stiff neck cannabinoid deficiency herd mentality sheep. Enlarging the fear centers of your brain causing you to follow like a paris hilton lapdog. They got your head so far up your ass, twisted into begging for more spankings and licking up tinkle down. We get it, you hate Americans. Especially the Military and Police. Got it. Say no more.

          LEAP ‏@CopsSayLegalize
          Seriously. Who’s in favor of this? #Prohibitionsucks–246189001.html

        • Crut says:

          On a scale of 1 to 10, you get a 2.1 Pete; what wasn’t incoherent was obnoxiously and intentionally abrasive.

        • In response to Petey:

          Have you seen Aaron Russo’s film, America: Freedom To Fascism?

          If you haven’t, here’s the skinny – taxes were to be paid on INCOME, not WAGES. The meeting on Jekyll Island back in 1910 subverted that, and in 1913, We The People were screwed.

          So, please – at least rid your screed of the taxes nonsense.

          To Windy – fantastic! Thanks for your efforts. We can get this country back, what with people like you around.

        • curmudgeon says:

          Would you believe that PB is providing still more evidence that Marijuana causes brain damage in those who do not use it.

        • Duncan20903 says:


          Pete Bulkner, you’re foaming at the mouth. Again. Please report to the nurse’s station for your medication. If you dilly dally it will annoy Nurse Ratched and you’ll end up the straight jacket.

        • thelbert says:

          peter b. is making a strong case for war crimes trials. something tells me he may have committed some war crimes in his war against peaceful citizens.

        • Matthew Meyer says:

          PB really makes me miss Wiggles and his jiggly rhyme schemes.

        • Daniel Williams says:

          Who was the idiot that hit the thumbs-up button for Pete’s screed?

    • Plant Down Babylon says:

      Good job Windy! I hope they read past the 2nd paragraph.
      Quite often they don’t want to hear the truth.

      We need to get rid of electronic voting machines.

      • Windy says:

        In WA we have voting by mail, no electronic machines here. But you’re right that electronic voting allows for all sorts of mischief, I don’t doubt voting is rigged to make sure the statists are always the ones who win.

        So far neither divadab nor darkcycle have responded to my request they join me in starting a recall petition for Rep. Vincent Buys (who claims to represent out county). I’m hoping they will both help get one going and gather signatures.

    • Tony Aroma says:

      I very much like the message of your letter, but I have to say I winced every time I got to one of your personal insults. I’m not saying you shouldn’t get your point across, but insulting someone is not the best way to get them on your side. It’s one thing to call a policy stupid, but when you call the recipient of the message stupid, that crosses the line. If that message were sent to me, I would’ve stopped reading after the first time you questioned my intelligence (actually, after the recall threat in the first message — threats are also not a good way to win friends and influence people). I think it’s always best to stick to discussing the issues rather than the people behind them. That’s my totally unsolicited $0.02.

      See how I criticized what you wrote without criticizing or insulting you personally?

      • Windy says:

        The recall threat is not a threat, it is a promise, I’m already looking into the legal method of recalling a State legislator. And I’m contacting people in other counties spreading the message of making those who vote against freedom face this kind of response from the voters. People have been far too apathetic about the constant intrusions in our private lives by government regulations and unconstitutional “laws” and I aim to help change that.

        I have dealt with these people for years, now; I have about reached the end of my rope with the density of their skulls, that they are so hidebound (even the younger ones) and their attitudes toward their constituents. You’re right, I should have kept my barbs to myself, but I just am so damn angry with these asshats, I lost my temper let the barbs flow, and then rereading it I let it stand as written. I don’t usually insult them but dammit, this time with this vote, they earned it!

        • primus says:

          I understand your frustration. I too sometimes feel the anger welling up inside. When I feel that way, I sometimes dash off some diatribe on the aggravating subject. In the past they sometimes went out that way, but with very little effect. When these thoughts are allowed to ‘ferment’ a bit, and the anger dissipates, the diatribe produced is much shorter and to the point. It also avoids the ‘snark’ problem. When people see snark they often stop reading. A sensibly written essay without venom is much more effective and persuasive. Such pointed, brief messages have a much better chance of being read by the recipient, whether politician, newspaper editor or reader. As with all things, there are better ways and worse ways. I have found that waiting until the rage goes away is better for me.

        • Pete Bulkner says:

          WHY ARE YOU STILL COMMENTING?? YOURE A WOMAN!! You are a lesser creature than man. Get off the internet and do as your husband commands. Women/Fags/Felons/Poor/working class/ Blacks/Illegals/Savage Indains/Muslims/Non True Christians/ Drug users/ Mentally Ill & Retards/Anyone NOT wealthy ,have NO Legal grounds to complain,vote,or any other rights granted by god & the constitution. You’re lack of understanding biblical law, is uttery stupidity. Go back to the kitchen & leave the policymaking to the ones who knows what’s best. Alan Jackson didn’t write that song about 9/11 for you. It was for Americans. YOU junkies caused all this .You Flew the towers into the buildings. You shitted and wiped your asses on my church. Fear god,fear the righteous. I Pray that Jesus beats you like redheaded ginger freaks.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          We’re all female for the first few weeks after the embryo attaches to wall of the uterus.

      • claygooding says:

        I have worn out my last pair of kneepads begging this government and the idiots making money from prohibition for crumbs,,it is one thing to be ignored when we strike back at their insinuations that being stoned equals being stupid but when they also ignore intelligent civil arguments backed up by science and common sense then it is time to get in the mud with them.

  3. claygooding says:

    As stories like CO trying to decide what to spend $100 million tax dollars on hit the news that B-B is about to blossom,,,turns out it was a hempseed rolling around in there with all that fertilizer.

  4. primus says:

    Seems a bit quiet, guys. Too quiet. Not many moles want to stick their heads up more than once due to our successes. Whenever they stick their heads up they get whacked. Hard. Now that the progressive pols have shown the others that there is tax revenue money and head-pats (Good boy. Is biscuit.) in re-legalisation, the others see that it is time to ‘evolve’ or else double down on the status quo. Difficult to know which way the trend will go. Also, there is the old saying that it is quiet before the storm. Makes me noivous.

  5. DdC says:

    “Don’t Step On The Grass, SAM”

    While pushin’ back his glasses. SAM is sayin’ casually. “I was elected by the masses”. And with that in mind he starts to unwind. A vicious attack on the finest of grasses.

    Well it’s evil, wicked, mean and nasty. And it will ruin our fair country. Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny. All will pay that disagree with me.

    Misinformation Kev and Joe. Are feeding to the nation. But the one who didn’t count, counted them out. By exposing all their false quotations. Faced by a very awkward situation. This is all he’d say to save the day…

    Marijuana Tax Money To Exceed Prior Expectations

    Legal Marijuana Revenue Exceeding Expectations

    A Marijuana Tidal Wave?

    Christian Canna Care Takes on IRS

    • claygooding says:

      You left out a key phrase there,,spoken very slowly with much thought:

      “”I don’t think marijuana is any more harmful than alcohol””

      Look what it is causing.

  6. darkcycle says:

    Windy, I doubt that there are 1), enough medical patients in this area to get the required signatures, 2), that if there were, we could get enough to sign, and 3), that his voting the way he has rises to the level if incompetence or criminality I believe is needed to warrant a recall. That’s the bottom line. I don’t think it’s called for. We shall have to remove him by voting him out. A recall is a high bar to clear, and it’s expensive, both in time and money. I have none of the former, and not enough of the latter to put effort into something I don’t believe in in the first place. I had hoped you’d moved on from that idea. Sorry.

    • Windy says:

      I have done some research and this is not the first time I’ve considered this kind of move, dc.

      The legal requirements for a recall in WA are as follows:

      Grounds for recall in WA:
      Commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violation of oath of office (Const. Art. I §33)
      [mal-fee-zuh ns]
      noun Law.
      the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).
      [mis-fee-zuh ns]
      noun Law.
      1. a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action.
      2. the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority.

      Well undoing the medical marijuana system is “legally unjustified” and “harmful” to the patients, and is therefore a “wrong arising from” his vote (which vote is an “affirmative action”). And voting aginst the best interests of the constituency fits this definition, too.

      Petition requirements for recall:

      Signature requirements are based on a formula, generally a percentage of the vote in the last election for the office in question, although some states base the formula on the number of eligible voters or other variants. Whatever the formula, the signature requirements are high: 25 percent for statewide offices and 35 percent for legislators in Washington
      Petition circulates for 180 days
      Replacing a recalled legislator:
      County board of commissioners appoints a person from a list submitted by a committee of the political party of the person recalled.

      Where one can find all this in the WA code:
      Const. Art. 1, Sec. 33-34; Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56-110 et seq

      Since most of Bellingham is liberal and Rep. Buys is GOP it shouldn’t be difficult to get 35% of the number of voters who voted in the election (that put him in office) to sign the petition. And I think there are a LOT more medical users than you think and don’t forget the growers, either. Of course one would have to put a petition in every dispensary (there are 4 on the Guide alone, between Smith and Pole Rds.) as well as just asking people one meets on the street or in local establishments. I think it may not be a difficult as you think to recall this dude for working against the best interests of his constituents.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        A recall is too tame, these drug warring barbarians deserve to be locked in cages for violating human rights.

        • Windy says:

          I agree, Jeff, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. I really think the recall idea has merit and a better chance of success than citizen’s arrest and trial (even though a recall’s chance of success may be small to nil as dc suggests, it’s better than doing nothing at all and better than waiting until the next election).

  7. allan says:

    so, wondering about Project SAM and their origins… Patrick Kennedy left politics with about $450,000 in his campaign war chest. I haven’t looked yet at where he can spend that money but thought it an interesting tidbit.

  8. Windy says:

    And naturally, none of this analysis even touches on the many other benefits not directly connected to the cannabis economy. For example, those of use who have no interest in consuming cannabis no longer have to worry that some imprudent house guest might leave cannabis on our property, or in our cars, thus exposing us to criminal charges (at the state level). The industrial hemp economy, which we don’t even have room to discuss here, offers a myriad of other economic benefits totally unrelated to recreational drug use.

    In a free society, it’s not up to business “leaders,” politicians, or the arbiters of public decency as to which industries shall be lauded and welcomed, and which shall be ignored and shunted aside. It is the market, which far more reliably reflects the true preferences and desires of the population than any political process, that is the one objective and honest measure of what it is that the consumers and taxpayers want. If consumers don’t want the cannabis industry in Colorado, it will surely shrink to insignificance. If, on the other hand, consumers do in fact want it, lawmakers possess no economic or moral grounds to declare otherwise.

  9. B. Snow says:

    Kev-Kev (‘Volunteer?-Professional JackAss’) is on CNN’s ‘OutFront’ arguing over Marijuana Legalization in Colorado
    vs. Trish Regan (‘Bloomberg TV Anchor’ & former CNBC Host).

    You remember her – She did tons of reporting on the subject for the CNBC specials – “Marijuana USA”, and “Marijuana Inc.” (Two of the highest-rated specials EVER aired on CNBC (pun coincidental… *shrug*)

    And, it’s great – Erin Burnett the ‘OutFront’ Host (and former CNBC reporter), apparently agreed to let Kev go first…

    AFTER she set up the news story, the Chyron-bar reads: “Colorado Is Cashing In On Pot” – “184 million expected in marijuana tax revenue”, that’s – “about 184 million expected in Tax revenue = in the first 18 months of legalization.”

    Kevie is rolling out the classics – and the “last gasp arguments”
    1. “Well, the Lottery…”
    2. “What about the social costs”
    And, some of his ridiculous “reefer-sadity” ™ arguments…
    3. “Big Marijuana”…

    Other great lines during this on the Chyron-bar = “Colorado’s Stash: $184 million in marijuana Taxes – Can other states afford not to legalize?”

    • Crut says:

      Thanks for the softball Kev: “for every dollar in alcohol tax revenue it’s costing us 10 in social costs”

      Interesting Kevin! So concerning marijuana, what is the comparable social cost?(besides incarceration, which is kinda the point of all this…)

      I found this for JUST the health related costs:

      Which says:”In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”

      Using your quote above, simple math says 1/10 = 16.5/165. So $16.5 spent on Alcohol PER USER would cost us $165. Using the SAME MATH, what does Marijuana cost? PER USER $16.5 of Cannabis costs us $20. So 16.5/20 = 1/1.212. $1.21 in health costs for every dollar that we could be receiving if we taxed the wacky tabakky. In my world, 1.21 is significantly less than 10 every day of the week.

      How about comparing the social cost of Getting arrested vs Not getting arrested? What’s the value on that? Can you put a dollar amount on NOT having heavily armed thugs breaking down your door at 3 in the morning and shooting your dog?

      • primus says:

        What value do you put on not having to worry about the LEO falsely claiming to ‘smell marijuana’ and tearing your car apart just because they feel like it?

      • “How about comparing the social cost of Getting arrested vs Not getting arrested? What’s the value on that? Can you put a dollar amount on NOT having heavily armed thugs breaking down your door at 3 in the morning and shooting your dog?”


      • claygooding says:

        The CDC tracks health costs as well as deaths associated with legal and illegal drugs,,they don’t have a fact sheet on marijuana,,,,,,

        While the ONDCP was raving about the 466K ER visits “involving” marijuana he completely ignored the 1.8 million ER visits “due” to alcohol and even more visits to private physicians offices due to alcohol.

    • Jean Valjean says:

      I got the feeling watching kev that he doesn’t even believe it himself…. he’s got the set talking points that he endlessly repeats: Big Marijuana, traffic accidents, and waddaboutthechildren etc. but he’s seen those shot down so many times that you can almost feel him wince when he trots them out again. A sad man who knows another hiding is looming.
      Hey kev, you and the kids would enjoy Utah much more and the rest of us won’t have to see your sorry ass.

    • Howard says:

      Kevin is all over the road in that segment. His citing of the RAND study regarding cartel profits resulting from marijuana is dubious since that study has been described as full of guesses (as are most studies trying to pinpoint anything regarding trade in illegal substances). Also, are we really supposed to believe his assertion that Mexican cartels have taken up shop in Colorado to peddling their marijuana wares to minors? Because they’re too young to enter legal businesses? WTF? There have NO reports suggesting anything like that is going on. Unhinged much, Kevvie?

      His alcohol comparison is also bizarre. He says alcohol is culturally ingrained and was only illegal for 10 years before it was re-legalized (earth to Kevin, marijuana was also legal before it was illegal). His social costs argument is off because the disease associations with alcohol are far greater than that for marijuana.

      He did look a little queasy sparring with those two ladies. That dizzy upset feeling is a sign of LOSING.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        Drinking alcohol prohibition hardly started in 1920 with the implementation of the National Prohibition Act of 1919. Maine was the first State to criminalize drinking alcohol in 1851. Maine did repeal that law in 1856. The first State to criminalize drinking alcohol which did not repeal until after the ratification of the 21st Amendment was Kansas in 1881. Kansas repealed in 1948. As of April 2013, Kansas still has not ratified the 21st Amendment. (Who the heck knew that it still has the option of ratification)

        By the time that the NPA was implemented more than 30 States had criminalized drinking alcohol.

        The Federal government does not lead the States, it follows them.
        History of liquor laws in Kansas

    • Windy says:


    • primus says:

      I tried it, works for a short time then cuts out.

      • B. Snow says:

        Ah – you’re right, that’s kinda funny the CNN glo clip was only about half of the whole thing, here is the full segment (its 7:48 mins)
        Kev-Kev gets tag-teamed on CNN and you can see the pain on his face!

        It includes most of Kevy “setting up” his garbage argument/premise, the [“”]-clip mostly shows Erin & Trish ripping him apart, Which is fine… he deserves it for a thousand things.

        But, you should be able to see WHY he deserved that degree of flailing during that particular ‘debate’.
        You really can see the recognition that he was gonna lose that battle.
        And, the depression on his face – as it “settled-in” and got cozy for the evening or maybe the whole weekend?
        I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he’s stays more than a little ‘butt-hurt’ over that incident… for at least a week… maybe a few weeks.

        Although, I don’t think they have anyone who can debate using their tired/BS talking points any better, Patrick is clearly a royal fuck-up in that department
        Unless the atmosphere/setting is prejudiced to agree with him from the git-go.

        • primus says:

          What is notable is the change in the treatment the KevKev receives; as little as 18 months ago, he dominated any discussion, the hosts always allowed him more time to make his arguments and the opposition was given little time to counter. Now, he is given a short time to set himself up, then the opposition is given lots of time to refute him. The arguments on our side are not simple, not sound-bite worthy, so take time to explain. This shift is very helpful in getting our points across. Also, the hosts are not so ready to take his side, more like they are sceptical. Formerly, we had the uphill battle, his were easier. Now, he has the uphill battle, and you can see from the look on his face that he doesn’t like it.

        • B. Snow says:

          If you think that was bad you should see how Don Lemon has been treating him!

          [Paraphrasing] He’s like… ‘yeah – I know Kevin, you keep saying “its dangerous”, but you can’t prove that to me.’ *except vaguely referring to, “the Dunedin NZ study”.
          Paty-Kake refers to it as “the Duke study” (which is half right), sometimes – Paty can’t even do that and says “Nora can tell you…”

          And, afaik, Nora backed-outta that appearance… (along with a couple other Med-Professionals in Rhode Island).
          Seems she knew she was gonna be sacrificed to the Metro-Bus Gods, by politicians.
          Probably, even worse than they did w/ Kevy & Paty-Kake.

          One time (not too long ago) Kevy was on remote from San Francisco or wherever = and had problems with his mic/sound(?) and you could kinda tell Don was in no hurry to help him get it fixed.
          It was pretty great, I don’t think they did it intentionally but – you could tell everyone there – Except, Kevy appreciated the irony of the situation.

  10. Windy says:

    Completely OT but I just have to report that since hubby broke his ankle 1/1/13 he’s complained of pain in the ankle making it hard for him to do much in the way of walking around (he did it anyway but suffered) for he last year. So day before yesterday his orthopedic surgeon took out two of the screws holding the plate on the inside of the ankle in an outpatient surgery. He is pain free (except for a bit of soreness at the incision site, itself) and just minutes ago he took off on his Harley (he drove his Z06 yesterday). Tomorrow he is allowed to remove all bandaging but he found a pair of a boots that fit over the bandaging and he’s riding! He’ll be back in the gym on Monday to start working off the 15 lbs he gained over the year. Yippee!

    • darkcycle says:

      I rode in my cast and later my knee brace after I injured my left knee. I bungee’d my cane to the bike, and I learned how to lean down and flip the kickstand out with my hand at just the last second before falling over when parking. Quite a trick, impressed lots of folks. (and never once fell over doing it!)

    • Jean Valjean says:

      Thanks Crut….I used to work with young people with epilepsy as a non-medical, but have spent many long hours in meetings with medical specialists in the epilepsy field. When I left in 2008 I had never once heard mention of cannabis as a possible treatment for seizures, despite the meeting’s primary purpose being to assess the effectiveness of Big Pharma’s products (including all sorts of uppers and downers) on the students seizure levels.
      I’m glad the epilepsy industry seems to be now aware of the potential benefit to patients.

    • Tony Aroma says:

      That’s kind of a big deal! For one thing, it means including epilepsy on a list of approved conditions should now be a no-brainer for any legislator. And of course another medical association support mmj is always a good thing.

    • DdC says:

      CA locals putting citizens at risk. When pinned down even cops acknowledge prohibition, not cannabis is the cause of violent acts. Though they still blame cannabis. They still won’t recognize it as medicine. Or safer than alcohol. Why are they even part of the conversation? Nixon lied. It doesn’t matter if towns banning gardens makes it easier for cops. It is illegal on false pretenses, therefore all of the hobgoblins cops are protecting us from. Only protect insane hallucinating people.

      People who don’t use cannabis but have the addiction to cure others from using it. To save us from their demons. How did that become criteria to get elected? Reagan was slick selling Chesterfields for your pleasure, 20 mule team borax phosphates and the Ganjawar including suffocating monkey’s to prove it caused brain damage from pot. That seems normal for a portion of the population with mental illness, but we are talking about elected officials and people who carry guns.

      The only reason they do is because people don’t want to be demonized for even suggesting it be researched..The 20,001st to conclude the crazy people should not be making policy on their delusions. Courts should not side with them because of a stamp from those appointing them to the bench. Profits on misery created by the profiteers is not business. Its not capitalism. Its human products and subsidiary body part commodities.

      18 years since we trudged through the rains and passed the Compassionate Use Act and we still have paranoid delusional profiteers hurling boulders onto the pathway. Let it be. It is of no concern, “Marijuana is one of the least toxic substances in the whole pharmacopoeia” said Professor Lester Grinspoon, Harvard Medical School, USA. I don’t see cops all schizoid over aspirin or pen caps killing actual people each year. Or the obvious and most neglected mentions, booze, chemical cigarettes, food and drugs.

      So the citizens speak and don’t want to harm sick people, and a few want to hold onto the purse strings instead. Dragging the others to hate the demons that aren’t real. They believe… they are real and that should not be good enough to justify it. If the roots are poison, so be the fruit. Can’t protect Nixon lies and say its for the kids you kill in the name of keeping them ignorant. How many brain tumors have you kept from treatment being outlawed? How many more kids with seizures will have to suffer for your demons? Or cancer or asthma or hundreds of ailments and symptoms.

      Just to fill cages with people. To eat more taxes then bitch about the food stamps or subsidized housing. Taxes for roads going to rehabilitation asylums forced treatment straight out of Nazi Germany. Including piss tests and slave labor. I can hardly think at the level one must go to even consider what these drug worriers mindset is. To take time and think of ways to humiliate, stigmatize and segregate. To think of ways to kill a compassionate use act. What possible childhood does one have to disregard human rights and civil rights because of the persons manner of dress or color of skin. How do you even get that low outside of inbreeding generations of Home Schooled DARE grads.

  11. Rasta says:

    Tried to take my sharp knife and go lay a piece of carpet but the man said I needed a seat belt. Cost $148.00 to make $100.00
    You lay the carpet. I go lie down.

  12. Matthew Meyer says:

    Meanwhile, in Shasta County, California, the Board of Supervisors has passed a ban on outdoor cultivation, with expensive requirements and very tight restrictions on indoor (e.g., 2k total watts in a permitted outbuilding, 12 plants total).

    Efforts to petition for a referendum have been met with aggressive police tactics:

    • claygooding says:

      I can produce 18>20 six ft plants using cfls with 2k and enough building,,even more using LED’s overhead and 36″ florescent tubes for side lighting.

      • Matthew Meyer says:

        bully fer you, Clay. This is a cannabis producing County. My conservative estimate is that its outdoor production is at least $100 million a year. And its overall economic picture very bleak.

        Cops will probably be hiring once growing season starts.

        • darkcycle says:

          Yeah…I have been following your posting on this on FB. They’re killing themselves. If they succeed in shutting the outdoor crop down it’s going to devastate the economy in Shasta. Pot’s just about the only thing keeping folks afloat there these days.
          It’s kinda incredible, how do they think they’re going to keep their jobs?

        • Windy says:

          Be kinda difficult to hire more cops if the county’s bankrupt.

    • DdC says:

      Locals banning individuals from safe access is unconstitutional. State cops can not enforce federal laws. Dispensaries are only banned, not individuals. Banning individual outdoor grows is unconstitutional by prop 215. Creating limits is unconstitutional by prop 215. Federal budget and man min start at 100 plants. Less is left to state jurisdiction except where prop 215 bans law enforcement. Considering it is all based on Nixon rejecting his own report. It should be obvious this is more to do with a culture bigotry than safety. The only unsafe acts are prohibition driving up cost. Making targets out of individuals. The demonizing and lies by police and city counsels is also unconstitutional and status quo when killing demons.

      “We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that,”

      “I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance [a category of dangerous drugs] because of sound scientific proof.”

      “They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true,”
      ~ Sanjay Gupta

      March 22nd will be 42 Years
      After Nixon’s Marijuana Commission Advocated Decriminalization

      “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,” boldly proclaimed that “neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety” and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use. Though rejected by Nixon — who refused to even read the report — and largely ignored by Congress.

      Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act
      ☛ Illegal possession and cultivation of marijuana,
      shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver
      ☛ It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an identification card in order to claim the protections of Section 11362.5.
      ☛ or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
      ☛ person’s health would benefit

      UPDATED: May 6, 2013
      Calif. Supreme Court: Cities can ban pot shops

      However, the rush to outlaw pot shops has slowed in the 21 months since the four federal prosecutors in California launched a coordinated crackdown on dispensaries by threatening to seize the property of landlords who lease space to the shops. Hundreds of dispensary operators have since been evicted or closed voluntarily.

      Supreme Court Upholds Authority Of Cities To Prohibit Medical Marijuana Facilities
      It is time for the state and federal governments to step up to the plate and fulfill the mandate of Prop 215 to implement a system of ‘safe and affordable’ access for all patients in medical need.”

      Shasta County Board of Supervisors votes to ban all outdoor pot grows
      Supervisor Leonard Moty made the final motion to vote on a revised proposal that would limit all outdoor grows, and only allow up to 12 plants to be grown inside dedicated outbuildings that meet specific standards. It was seconded by Supervisor Pam Giacomini. Sheriff Tom Bosenko told the supervisors that a complete ban on all outdoor grows would make it easier to enforce… The medical marijuana issue came after a morning in which the supervisors approved $20 million for a jail expansion…

      Local Medical Marijuana Cultivation & Possession Guidelines in California

      Shasta County
      Sungrown in Shasta is collecting signatures on referendums to repeal their counties’ restrictive growing ordinance. Local action needed! Contact:

      Any potential litigants, attorneys, expert witnesses or donors, in regards to suing Shasta County can contact Jason Browne at 530-528-0215 / 530-736-6801, or

      On January 29, 2014, Shasta County voted to ban all outdoor cultivation, allowing only indoor cultivation of 12 plants or fewer. The new ordinance is set to take effect in 30 days. Read more.

      While there may be a need in some cities to require greenhouses or other security measures for gardens, in rural areas and in whole counties, there is no justification for outlawing outdoor marijuana gardens. In any case, hardship exemptions for indigent patients must be included to assure safe access under state law. Any patient who is impacted by planned or existing local ordinances can write to

      City of Santa Cruz
      The City of Santa Cruz has an ordinance recognizing “growing certificates.”
      Santa Cruz County
      On December 10, 2013, Santa Cruz county Supervisors approved new cultivation rules as an effort to push large-scale operations out of the residential neighborhoods and into the hills. They limit personal medical marijuana grows to 100 square feet, but allow up to 3,000 square feet in rural areas, depending on the size of the property.

      On September 24, 2013, Santa Cruz county considered a new ordinance, limiting parcels to 1000 plants unless a variance is granted, on October 29, assigned the issue to a task force, possibly including representatives from the county agriculture department; UCSC; the Association of Standardized Cannabis, a local industry group; the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau and more.

      Right now, 100 sq.ft. canopy and up to 99 plants is allowable under county guidelines, for a patient or a bone fide caregiver.

      Ending & Pillage Incrementally
      What happens when cops write initiatives.

  13. Howard says:

    I’m usually not a fan of the tired, typical “stoners with munchies” stories but this made me chuckle;


    A Girl Scout Sold an Insane Amount of Cookies Outside a Cannabis Clinic in San Francisco

    Is there a merit badge for “Business Administration?” Give it to 13-year-old Girl Scout Danielle Lei.

    On Monday, Lei and her mom took off to a wildly popular San Francisco medical marijuana dispensary, The Green Cross, with thin mints, Dulce de Leches, and Tagalongs—in short, Girl Scout-approved munchies. In just two hours, they sold 117 boxes, 37 more than they sold the next day when parked outside a boring ol’ Safeway.


    I mean, 117 boxes in two hours? That’s moving some product :).

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Does this mean that whole plant exo-cannabinoid medicine has earned the GSA seal of approval or were they just giving an object lesson that it’s just plain false that a non-profit corporation can ethically sell stuff with an incredibly large markup? IIRC the markup on GS cookies is well over 300%.

      Why in the world was I looking up the finances of the GSA? Because I wanted to know what the markup was on their cookies. Just because I was tired of hearing about the markups on medicine from California medicinal cannabis vendors. Also the claim that any markup proved that they weren’t non-profit.

      Hey, who here knows that Sunkist is a non-profit too?

      • Duncan20903 says:



        Another question…how do we know that this isn’t a set up to get the medicinal cannabis vendor evicted because they’re not outside the GS cookie vendor buffer zone? Paranoid? Nah, I read about a trailer park in Florida which catered to convicted kiddie diddlers after their release. A woman wanted to get the kiddie diddlers from her presence so she opened a day care center across the street from the park. Mission accomplished. I think they found a nice bridge over a piece of land for the evicted men to call home.

        Hey, Time magazine called it a pharmacy!

      • Duncan20903 says:

        Oh for crying out loud, this story is getting international attention. “Girl Scout Sells Cookies” what a shocker. I’m putting this one into the “dog bites man” category.

        • Howard says:

          Speaking of “dog bites man”, have you seen “Man Bites Dog”(1992)? A black comedy crime mockumentary. Hard to believe it came out 24 years ago, regarded as a cult film now. Highly recommended if the limited description piques your interest.

        • Howard says:

          Excuse em moi, 22 years ago that is. That darn time thingy…

        • primus says:

          Agreed, it’s mundane, however, the video was nice; it said she learned that ‘they weren’t drugged out, just people with needs who are just a little different’. Good lesson. Good publicity for medipot.

        • tensity1 says:

          Yeah, Man bites Dog is interesting.

      • darkcycle says:

        Yeah, Sunkist is the Fla. Orange Grower’s coop and it’s technically a non-profit. I knew that, but I can’t tell you WHY I know that. Just one of those pieces of information that stick to your brain like used TP to a shoe.

        • claygooding says:

          Non-profit allows the owner to keep all the profits and claim it as business expense for hiring experts.

      • claygooding says:

        UH-OHHH,,SAM got it wrong,,,again,,,instead of marijuana businesses targeting kids the kids are targeting marijuana businesses,,,apparently the kids are smarter than SAM.

    • claygooding says:

      It must have looked a lot like the Girl Scout Cookie display ad.

  14. Legalizing marijuana in Minnesota: good idea?

    Its all a big quote of the story of marijuana according to Kevin. They refused to print both my replies and I was trying to be nice. It appears to be an indoctrination piece, not news. I don’t know what the comment section is for. I suspect it will only be printed if you agree with Kevin.

    • jean valjean says:

      if you click on the authors name (mike hanks) you ll notice how his unquestioning support of sabets twaddle and prohibition in general does not extend to alcohol. he has a puff piece for an upcoming wine and microbrew tasting and seems totally oblivious to any contradiction.

  15. Windy says:

    Received two, nearly identical, emails from the urban dictionary today. Here’s the first:

    Thanks for your definition of Prohibitch!

    Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to publish it on

    The second was only different in that the word they accepted was prohibidiot. Just thought you’d all like to know.

    • claygooding says:

      you beat me too it,,,now we need a grant for being an educational source.

    • Windy says:

      This is how Prohibitch appears there:

      Those who KNOW the truth about the prohibited drug list and that prohibition of these substances is absolutely unconstitutional but want to keep it going, nevertheless, in spite of the science, because they either make money or gain power from it.
      A prohibitch is anyone working for the DEA, the ONDCP and people like VP Joe Biden in government and Kevin Sabet, Patrick Kennedy and others in the private sector who tell lies about recreational drugs and want to imprison people for using drugs on the naughty list.


      Those who never look beneath the surface of the lying propaganda the prohibitches spew.
      Dr. Sanjay Gupta WAS a prohibidiot, until he actually looked at the research, now he is a drug law reformer

  16. Windy says:

    Richland Medical Marijuana Patient Denied Concealed Pistol License

  17. Windy says:

    Hmm, this is interesting:
    I wonder if this might be a way to wrest control of cannabis from the WALCB?

    Matthew Mueller ‏@mueller27d 8h
    @KING5Seattle Yes, focus on liquor. Liquor has and always will be the problem, not pot.

  18. DdC says:

    New Jersey lawmakers debating changes to state medical marijuana program despite Governor’s disapproval

    U.S.: Banks Balk At Marijuana Money Despite Relaxed Guidelines | Hemp News

  19. What If They Had a Drug War + No One Came?

  20. Matt says:

    Dear Windy, I’m with you all the way, but I can’t help thinking you are just a little naive about this. I think it is about time we stopped the pointless questions as to why the possession and use of cannabis et. al. is illegal. It IS NOT because of their danger, it DOES NOT have anything whatsover to do with the particular drug. It is all about creating a false economy from the oppression of a minority of people (the users). A very effective way of siphoning off billions of dollars of government money to employ thousands of people (DEA etc) that would normally be umemployed. As well as this, the profits from a tax free black market. The War On Drugs has not been a failure. It has been a spectacular success for the police, private prisons, advertising and educational industies and companies that supply the forenamed industries etc etc. It is how they get their money. This is it’s reason for being. We all know alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. In general, can we possibly get past this naivety and address the real issues, ie the real reason behind the so-called War On Drugs??? It is nothing but a giant state run welfare system. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the actual drugs in question. It is all about who profits from the involvement of a minority in the criminal justice system.

    • Crut says:

      Hi Matt,

      First, it’s interesting that you responded on a week-old thread where most aren’t going to look…

      Second, I agree with you, while I have a small issue with your generalization: that we should stop the “pointless” questions of why possession and use of cannabis is illegal. In this context (the DrugWarRant “couch”) it is definitely mostly pointless, as most of the members here are informed enough to know and express a multitude of reasons why the current state of affairs exists, including the one that you gave.

      However, the question is important, still needs to be asked, and frequently answered to the satisfaction of the inquisitor. Because, outside of this context, there are still far too many people who are ignorant of most of the reasons. We will often have fly-by visitors who are not part of this community, and will not have the knowledge to understand how deep the actual problem with the War on (some) drugs goes. If you try and jump in with only one (strong) reason why the drug war exists, but shouldn’t, there will be a significant cohort of people that will not listen to your message due to their personal biases.

      The War On Drugs has not been a failure. It has been a spectacular success for the police, private prisons, advertising and educational industies and companies that supply the forenamed industries etc etc.

      This statement, while accurate in a way, belies our purpose and implies that the people in those industries are evil megalomaniacs hell bent on destroying society. How are you going to convince an honestly curious prison guard, or a not yet corrupted politician to your point if the first thing you say attacks his/her choice of profession? You may not believe it, but the majority of people in those industries believe they are there for the betterment of society. They may be misguided in some of their beliefs, but this single-answer approach closes doors instead of opening them.

      There are multiple answers to this question relating to, but not limited to: Racism, Money, Authoritarianism, Religion, Class, etc. Your answer addresses Money specifically, but does nothing to convince an open-minded Nun.

      • Matt says:

        Dear Crut, where do I start? The crux of the issue here is you have got upset because I told the truth, conveyed the facts of the matter and “hit the nail on the head.” In your response it is reasonably apparent that you know I am right, but for some reason you choose to be largely in denial and actually attack me for telling the truth. I strike this often in my internet interaction on drugs. It is absolutely pointless to continue to remonstrate with politicans on the dangerousness of particular drugs and the relationship of harm to the substance’s legal status. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Many informed politicians (almost certainly the president) know this. It is just that they are compelled to either lie, dissemble or obfuscate. If the issue was genuinely about a substance’s harm, the use, possession, manufacture etc of tobacco and alcohol would be subject to criminal sanctions. The real issue here is that the pretence of harm is used to justify the (basically) imprisonment of a minority (therefore politically powerless) component of society to create jobs for people. Again, I don’t care if you have not got the courage to acknowledge the truth of this. It is the truth, the facts. Also, I don’t apoligise for the direct nature of my language. Again it is the truth. The problem only arises when people such as yourself have an issue with the truth. Nothing I say “attacks” a prison guard’s choice of profession. I’m sorry but that is just silly. All I am saying is that a significant proportion of the prison industry is sustained on the oppression of a minority. It is a human rights abuse. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. I am reasonably sure that many prison guards would understand if it were explained to them. The point is however, that it is generally NOT being explained to them, even in forums such as this. And when someone does broach the issue, they are attacked. Do you understand my frustration? Lets just say that in a fortnight, the possession and use of ALL drugs was made legal. One, if not the biggest issue for politicians would be the job losses in the “prison/industrial” system. Lets just say that one thousand DEA special agents and administrative staff were kept on to inspect legal dispensaries. About nine thousand people in the DEA alone would become unemployed. THIS is what we need to be talking about, not the pointless discussion on the relative dangerousness of cannabis compared to alcohol. I meant no disrespect to Windy, but the narrative really needs to change. It needs to enter the realm of the realistic and start to talk about the real issues, not remain stuck in pointless, peripheral arguments.

        • darkcycle says:

          Matt. Crut neither attacked you, nor did he disagree with you. I think if you spent a little more time here, you’d understand that, A) You’re preaching to the Choir, and B) many contributors to this forum have a specific purpose. That involves taking these arguments to these very people, the ones who don’t agree, may not want to agree, and yet CAN be persuaded. This couch works as a sort of idea clearing house, where we, mostly grizzled old activists work out how and where to bring in these ideas. Explaining a reality to a person who does not want to agree with your premise in the first place is a delicate matter. That’s all Crut was saying. Oh, that, and you missed the Race/Religion/Class warfare/ corporate profit protection motivators in your narrow focus on the motives of public servants.

        • Crut says:

          Thanks for letting me know I was upset! I didn’t know. I’ll get that looked at.

          I do understand your frustration, so please understand that you are welcome to share your views here, but don’t expect to not be critiqued! I expect it every time I sit in front of the screen.

          And thanks dc.

Comments are closed.