The New York Times says it

Editorial: Repeal Prohibition, Again

It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.

The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.

Yeah. This is pretty big.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to The New York Times says it

  1. curmudgeon says:

    Is this a mere THUD!, or a KABOOM!
    Beware of wall shrapnel.

    • hope says:

      My apologies, curmudgeon. Neuropathy. Meant to like.

      • hope says:

        Or mayb it’s not my weird fingers maybe it’s my eyes but my aim seems off sometimes on this tablet.

      • curmudgeon says:

        No problem, Hope. My usual excuse is either glaucoma, or being one toke over the line.

    • kaptinemo says:

      “When the avalanche begins, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.” – Ambassador Kosh (#1), Babylon 5.

      In this case, the pebbles are the prohibs…and they’re already heading downhill. They could have stopped their own eventual comeuppance by dealing forthrightly with us, but now, it’s too late. The flagship of the media, once their lapdog, has turned on them. Other media outlets will follow suit. The process will accelerate even faster. And when they hit bottom, they’ll hit hard.

      For what’s waiting for them is pure, unadulterated, industrial-strength karma. And they’ve earned every bit.

      So, yes, helmets and flack jackets are appropriate wear for the forseeable future. Because those pebbles might ricochet when they hit bottom.

  2. claygooding says:

    When you consider tht this was the decision of the entire editorial board it points out that people with direct knowledge of how marijuana use and it’s prohibition effects our society in every facet.

    Some Background on Our ‘High Time’ Series
    By ANDREW ROSENTHAL JULY 26, 2014 8:12 PM

    “”The decision to call for the end of marijuana prohibition was long in the making.

    The Times editorial board has for years supported the legalization of medical marijuana. And we have opposed federal crackdowns on people who grow or sell marijuana for medical purposes in states where that’s legal.

    But as more and more states liberalized their marijuana laws in open defiance of the federal ban, it became clear to us that there had to be a national approach to the issue.

    We considered the scientific evidence, which shows that there is relatively little risk associated with adults using marijuana and that, as addictive substances go, marijuana barely moves the needle. Nicotine and alcohol, on the other hand, are extremely addictive.”” ‘snip’

    IMO this decision could also be condidered a study by experts in their own fields.

  3. darkcycle says:

    Wow. Just…wow.

  4. DonDig says:

    I can see clearly now, the rain has gone. I can see all obstacles in my way.
    Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind. It’s gonna be a bright, bright sun-shining day.


    This congress seems very unlikely to be capable of doing anything about this quickly, but having the New York Times on board is huge conceptual progress anyway.

    Thanks for everything Pete.

  5. Servetus says:

    It’s not over until the Grey Lady sings. Nice that she’s joined the chorus.

  6. kaptinemo says:

    The gauntlet has been thrown. Congress has just been challenged. By the premier media outlet on this continent. And in the face of rising support for re-legalized cannabis, Congress dare not back down.

    I recall back in 2012 I said that 2014 should be the next big push, while many of the reform groups are setting their sights on the Presidential Election of 2016. After this, I believe that they should instead campaign harder [i]this[/i] year.

    For the NYT has just put a shiteload of high-quality steel in the forge, and it’s already turning from red- to white-hot. Time to grab the hammer and tongs and start pounding, again.

  7. Jean Valjean says:

    The original Cronkite moment was probably a myth as far as Johnson’s reaction to it goes, but I’d like to think that anyone running for office in the next couple of years will see this as writing on the wall. Even as few as a half-dozen drug war reps losing badly in 2014 will be enough for congress to see that the feed-trough has been moved. Then watch how many “closet reformers” come out of the woodwork telling us how they’ve always been in favor of re-legalization.

    • Jean Valjean says:

      I should have added that the NYT itself is the first of these closet drug reformers to emerge after 80 years of banging the drum for prohibition.

    • kaptinemo says:

      It will only take 2 election cycles to get it through the thickest pol’s skull to realize the wind has shifted, and s/he should be careful in which direction they want to urinate now.

      For, we won’t tolerate their peeing in our faces and calling it rain, any longer.

      A real test will be when you begin to see the usual BS stated on pol’s ‘FAQ’ tabs on their Websites regarding their stance on cannabis prohibition change. When they remove the intelligence-insulting propaganda supplied from ONDCP and DEA from their Websites, you’ll know they’ve gotten the message.

      UPDATE: I was going to provide an example of that kind of officially-accepted BS on a pol’s site by going to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s bit of visual excretion, but when I tried to bring up the Webpage she used in her pathetic attempt to ‘explain’ her vote against the FL MMJ law last month, the page has been 404’ed.

      Maybe she got the message, after all. (Wolf’s grin)

      • allan says:

        even tho’ NotDwight happened right in his own backyard, OR gov Kitzhaber insists on maintaining his profile as a cannabigot. He’s trying to make it such that OMMP patients can’t run daycare centers… more to come on this one.

  8. claygooding says:

    It is neat that the NYT realizes something that Congress hasn’t,,it doesn’t really matter what government flunkies and legislators want if the population decides in favor on the issue.

  9. DdC says:

    Come gather ’round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You’ll be drenched to the bone If your time to you Is worth savin’ Then you better start swimmin’ Or you’ll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin’.

    The Public Lightens Up About Weed
    Juliet Lapidos New York Times

    Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won’t come again And don’t speak too soon For the wheel’s still in spin
    And there’s no tellin’ who That it’s namin’ For the loser now Will be later to win For the times they are a-changin’.

    NYT Editorial Board Calls For Legalization Of MJ
    Andrew Hart Huffington Post

    Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don’t stand in the doorway Don’t block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There’s a battle outside And it is ragin’ It’ll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin’.

    Let States Decide on Marijuana
    David Firestone New York Times

    Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land And don’t criticize What you can’t understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is Rapidly agin’ Please get out of the new one If you can’t lend your hand For the times they are a-changin’.

    Repeal Prohibition, Again
    The NYT Editorial Board

    The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast As the present now Will later be past The order is Rapidly fadin’ And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin’.

    It goes like this
    The fourth, the fifth
    The minor fall, the major lift
    The baffled king composing Hallelujah
    Hallelujah, Hallelujah
    Hallelujah, Hallelujah

  10. Duncan20903 says:


    What a weirdly unique comments column. No time stamp, no direct replies to the other riff-raff, and they’re asking everyone who posts to specifically label their opinions. That last one gets my extra special appreciation. But I am stunned just how hard it is to find anyone labeling themselves “against” in that long, long,long list of self identified legalizers. Is there not any good speech to text software that allows the illiterate the opportunity to participate in the discussion?

    Message in a Bottle
    A year has passed since I wrote my note
    But I should have known this right from the start
    Only hope can keep me together
    Love can mend your life
    But love can break your heart

    Walked out this morning
    Don’t believe what I saw
    A hundred billion bottles
    Washed up on the shore
    Seems I’m not alone at being alone
    A hundred billion castaways
    Looking for a home

    I’ll send an SOS to the world
    I’ll send an SOS to the world
    I hope that someone gets my [x3]
    Message in a bottle [x2]

    Sending out an SOS

  11. Duncan20903 says:


    I can’t recall ever before seeing a newspaper op-ed being a news story reported internationally.

    Who’da thunk it possible? (Long term inmates of insane asylums excluded)

  12. DdC says:

    Smoke weed, become the president.

    Hemp: the forgotten fibre – Agriculture – Cropping – General News – The Land #FarmOnline

    Mark A.R. Kleiman ‏@MarkARKleiman
    Two bad ideas on cannabis policy: continued prohibition and commercialization.

    Question everything.

    Rand Paul: Republicans Can Only Win if “They Become More Live and Let Live” via @reason

    • strayan says:

      Ahahaha, Kleiman links to a ‘take-down/demolition job’ (hardly) of the New York Times editorial:

      Apparently the under 21 crowd will still provide enough money to fund an illegal black market.

      20 and under: Keeping the bootleg liquor industry alive.

      Yeah right.


      • Duncan20903 says:


        There are black markets. …and then there are black markets. Some well seasoned but timeless boilerplate:

        In Georgia USA, there are still a few vestigial bootleggers of drinking alcohol. In that State modern day bootlegging leads to the scourge of stripper poles and the tragedy of illegal buffets:

        Gainesville men charged with illegally selling alcohol

        Though the squads focus on drugs and gangs, they address a few bootlegging cases each year.

        “They pop up every now and then. People want to make a little extra money,” Ware said. “They’ll buy beers and then sell it for two or three times more.”

        In early November, three people were arrested and accused of selling alcohol illegally out of a home on Brown Street. The suspects allegedly were selling beer, wine, mixed drinks and shots of moonshine.

        There was also a buffet and a stripper pole set up at the house, Ware said.

  13. Dante says:

    Having the NY Times publish an anti-prohibition article is nice but it will not change the minds of Congress.

    Because they only read books with big pictures and small words. Look, I see Waldo!

  14. Ned says:

    I still don’t get why they believe the right to use the plant is not a fundamental right. That some states could continue to prohibit on their own as a “State right”. That’s poorly thought out by the board. It isn’t going to require a Constitutional amendment to repeal this prohibition so there is no need to appeal to and entice State Legislatures to ratify repealing this prohibition as there was with ratifying the 21st Amendment. The fact that alcohol has 50 different sets of regulation is an ongoing problem for those in the business. Why is it necessary to repeat that?

    Sure it was crucial that States were able to go against the government to get this prohibition on the way to ending but that doesn’t also mean that States should have total control.

    The sad reality of “regulation” is that today the regs are mostly shaped by special interests. The deepest pocketed interests get the regs that suit themselves and their interests. That’s true whether it’s Federal or State level. To bad it can’t simply be the best polices and regs across the country, for everyone.

  15. Nick says:

    Finally, the clueless masses can change their minds now that the NY times tells them to. Things are coming around nicely.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Pluralistic ignorance has been keeping cannabis law reform moving at a snail’s pace. While it’s genuine stupidity there is not an insignificant cohort of voters who care about nothing but casting their vote with the majority. So yes, the New York Times article does give them permission to support the end of prohibition. We got a 10 point bump in support in the popular opinion polls within a week of Election Day 2012. While I can’t swear to it as absolute truth I’m hard pressed to even speculate what else could have caused that bump.

  16. Pricknick says:

    It was a big deal.

    The New York Times Will Continue Drug Testing Despite Pot Legalization Stance


    • Atrocity says:

      My favorite part of their hypocrisy is the way they attempt to justify it by hinting the law forces them to be hypocrites.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        I admit that I’m not well versed in the arcana of the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act so I Googled it. Wow. I think it might be a gold mine of facts that tend to discredit the monumental stupidity of the prohibitionist cohort concerning this part of the controversy. I’d say the full article linked is well worth a read, but here’s a couple of parts that struck me as highly salient:

        Spark the Discussion: Top Five Myths About the Drug-Free Workplace Act
        By Kimberlie Ryan
        December 18, 2012

        By definition, the DFWA limits the “workplace” to the work site for certain “covered” employers and by its terms does not include any other location where work for the contract is not performed. It does not allow employers to prohibit the use of marijuana completely, and it does not apply to all employers or employees. Now to the myths.

        The Act does not apply to those that do not have contracts or grants from the federal government, and it does not apply to employees who are not directly engaged in the performance of the covered contract or grant.

        The DFWA does not require or authorize drug testing. In fact, the legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress did not intend to impose any additional requirements beyond those set forth in the Act, which are very limited as discussed below. Specifically, the legislative history precludes the imposition of drug testing of employees as part of the implementation of the Act.

        The requirements of the Act “coexist with state and local law,” according to the United States Department of Labor. Colorado does not have any state statute governing drug testing in employment, and adults have a Constitutional right to use marijuana in Colorado. The City of Boulder Ordinance 5195 prohibits employee drug testing except in clear cases of probable cause, and where a written policy has already been provided to the work force. In general, Colorado employers should update their drug testing policies to account for the Constitutional right, or expect legal challenges.

        Employers have wasted millions of dollars on ineffective, invasive, and unnecessary drug testing that is not required by the DFWA. Drug tests cannot show impairment, if any, or even when marijuana use occurred. Many employers have relied on information provided by drug testing promoters who have an inherent conflict of interest on the topic. It has long been recognized that widely cited cost estimates of the effects of drug use on U.S. productivity are based on questionable assumptions and weak measures, according to a report of the National Academy of Sciences. It is a challenge to locate a single case that has imposed liability on a private employer for opting out of drug testing, and despite beliefs to the contrary, the preventative effects of drug testing programs have never been adequately demonstrated.

        Would someone please tell me why the name of the DFWA doesn’t form a pithy yet clever acronym? Isn’t that required by law?

  17. tensity1 says:

    TOTALLY OT and self-promotiing:

    I missed the open thread a few posts back and don’t have time to wait for the next one. Hopefully I’ve built enough goodwill with my intermittent posts over the past half decade (I think) to have couchmates check out the following without tossing me down the basement stairs to have time-out with Mr. Wiggles . . .

    Here’s my take on the Subtraction Blues jam track from Mike Zito’s new TrueFire course, Blues Americana. Check it out at

    Most likes will win the prize, but I’ve entered a bit late; at this point, I just want to direct my playing and hobby–you know, actually do something with all my equipment and noodling.

    Hope you enjoy, and check out TrueFire, my fav guitar spot on the web. If you try it out, use my referral code and we’ll both be swimming in the TrueFire cash.

    Sincerest Thanks, and if you must throw things at me for the spam, at least throw roaches.

    • tensity1 says:

      Oh yeah . . . about facking time, NYT. SOOOOOO ahead of the curve.

    • Crut says:

      Nice, but too short! I want more.

      And Wiggles isn’t in the basement, he’s only allowed in the attic since we re-modeled. There’s a foosball table and a home-theater room down there now. He kept sticking his gum under the arm-rests… so…

      • tensity1 says:

        TY for the listen, Crut. The attic must really be soundproofed–don’t ever hear Wiggles much, anymore. That’s too bad; amid the crazy was an occasional gem of wordsmithing. Almost always entertaining, in either case.

    • SKOOTERCAT says:

      Thank you for sharing your piece with us tensity1.
      I am working with The Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey on a PATV project. They hope to be on air this fall and in need of talent to make the production more than the usual public access sleeper. Where might a producer make contact with music talent interested in helping us?

  18. claygooding says:

    New York Times Editorial Board Calls for Repeal of Marijuana Prohibition!

    “This is of historic consequence – far bigger than most people assume. Some people in the country may perceive the Times editorial page as a liberal organ, but they should know that on this issue they’ve been cautious to a fault, even conservative, said Nadelmann. “So for them to write what they did, at this juncture, demonstrated intellectual and moral clarity as well as courage.” ‘snip’
    ^ Nathans comment on it,,I wish kev-kev could debate Ethan on the inportance of the editorial.

  19. Firefighter Frank says:

    Nice jam tensity, are you playing a Strat? Would love to throw down a blues groove with you. Keep up the good work!

    • tensity1 says:

      Thanks. It’s a cheap Tele thinline copy by Xaviere (a house brand, I think, from Actually became my favorite guitar after a while, over my Carvin all-Koa DC200.

      Anyhow, there’s various online musician collaboration tools I’ve heard of, though I haven’t looked into any. Who knows, one day we just may jam. Amazing stuff, this Internet thingy.

      Appreciate the listen, Frank, and everyone else.

  20. Steve Finlay says:

    This is really good news, because we know that papers like the NYT follow public opinion rather than leading it. I am, however, disappointed that they focus so much on the relative benefits vs. harms of the drug. That’s not the point. The point is the harms of prohibition.

  21. Tony Aroma says:

    One thing nobody seems to mention when comparing 1920s-style prohibition with the modern version: 1920s prohibition would be what we would call decriminalization today. No one went to jail just for being in possession of alcohol. That would have been absurd. It was only illegal to manufacture, import, or distribute alcohol.

    In other words, 1920s-style prohibition would be a significant improvement over the modern version.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      There were State and local laws as well. Federal law didn’t start prohibition of drinking alcohol, it ended it. Remember this one from February 8 1914, published in the very same New York Times as above? Unless my calendar needs to go to the repair shop this was published 6 years before the National Prohibition Act of 1919 was implemented in January of 1920. Some people call the NPA the “Volstead Act.”

      Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken to “Sniffing” Since Deprived of Whisky by Prohibition.

      By Edward Huntington Williams, M.D.
      February 08, 1914

      FOR some years there have been rumors about the increase in drug taking in the South — vague, but always insistent rumors that the addiction to such drugs morphine and cocaine was becoming a veritable curse to the colored face in certain regions. Some of these reports of alleged conditions read like the wildest flights of a sensational fiction writer.

      Huh. I’d never before noticed that the author has an M.D. attached to his name. The duck says, “Quack!”

  22. DdC says:

    ‘Don’t Do That!’: Whoopi Goes Off on View Co-Hosts’ Anti-Weed Arguments

    New York Times: End Federal Marijuana Prohibition

  23. allan says:

    stupid? or intentional from Calvina’s minion?

    Vote no on Marijuana legalization this November in Oregon

  24. free radical says:

    My comment on this guardian piece:

    While I agree with the guardian’s overall position, that cannabis prohibition must end, they make several glaring and embarrassing errors in the second paragraph of this opinion piece:

    “As for recent scientific developments, these have only reinforced the medical dangers. Since the 1990s a rare but real link with schizophrenia has emerged. And whereas the lack of long-term evidence always used to allow hippies to insist that “nobody ever died from a spliff”, tracking studies exploring a connection with cancer are finally suggesting that cannabis smoke might, after all, have many of the disadvantages long associated with smoke of other sorts.”

    Hello? Is the guardian somehow unaware that scientific studies into the benefits of cannabis are all but illegal, requiring a potential researcher to jump a series of impossible bureaucratic hurdles, and even then, they are only allowed to test cannabis grown at University of Mississippi, of all places. The government has suppressed their own research that showed cannabis is relatively harmless, and should be legal. Please google: Schafer commission.

    The touted “link” to schizophrenia? Pure reefer madness. Could you be more vague? What is the link? Studies are showing that those who are prone to schizophrenia are likely to seek relief from their symptoms, which is safely and effectively provides by cannabis. Trying to imply that cannabis “causes” schizophrenia, a claim for which there is no credible evidence, is a scare tactic worthy of rush limbo.

    “Connection” with cancer? Again, a scare tactic designed to fool the ignorant into thinking “cannabis causes cancer.” What is the connection? Cannabis is well-known to fight cancer. Please google: Dr. Donald Tashkin cannabis cancer study.

    “…cannabis smoke might … have many of the disadvantages long associated with smoke of other sorts.”

    Or not. How about doing a modicum of research to see if there’s any merit to such a suggestion? Cannabis smoke has anti-oxidant and neuroprotective properties. It is nothing like smoke “of other sorts,” for god’s sake! It is nothing like cigarette smoke, which is laced with a cocktail of chemicals including formaldehyde. It is nothing like car exhaust which contains asthma-causing particulate matter and deadly carbon monoxide. If the smoke of cannabis really were such a big problem, there are other ways to administer it, such as vaporizing, which creates no smoke. Or it can be simply eaten.

    The article seems to provide this misinformation as a salve for all their prohibitionist readers, so the guardian can seem still a little “conservative” by repeating prohibitionist talking points completely devoid of facts. Any fifth grader with Internet access can debunk these ludicrous claims, yet the guardian treats them like gospel. Shame.

    Again, kudos to the guardian for, at least, endorsing an end to prohibition. I humbly request that the factual errors can be corrected, and the cherry-picked data be given full context.

  25. DdC says:

    Toddler Beaten to Death by Foster Mother

    Marijuana Prohibition Responsible for Death of 2-Year-Old Girl

    Meet Legal Weed’s First Billionaire

    New post on Marijuana by Keith Stroup

    The Guardian view on overdue overhauling of US and global drug laws

  26. claygooding says:

    I have added a poster to the wall in front of the couch to honor our squadron:

    • curmudgeon says:

      Good poster, Clay. It certainly fits with most of the couch sitters being bombed as often as seems necessary.

  27. claygooding says:

    Right out of the gate they ignore that legalizing marijuana for adults removes marijuana from the streets into stores where ID’s can be checked and they want it kept there and every point they claim as justification is the same as always,,half truths and bullshit.

    • claygooding says:

      Edit it and run it up their ass.

      Marijuana use affects the developing brain. A recent study in Brain reveals impairment of the development of structures in some regions of the brain following prolonged marijuana use that began in adolescence or young adulthood.[1] Marijuana use is associated with cognitive impairment, including lower IQ among adult chronic users who began using marijuana at an early age.[2]
      A. Legalization reduces young peoples access to marijuana while prohibition gurantees easy access and the lowered IQ by living in poverty is twice as much,,we can fix the poverty issue with a couple of years budget of the ONDCP.
      Substance use in school age children has a detrimental effect on their academic achievement. Students who received earned D’s or F’s were more likely to be current users of marijuana than those who earned A’s (45% vs. 10%).[3]
      A. Again,,keeping mrijuana distributed by criminals increases access and you cannot stop criminals as long as you keep the money hanging in front of them,,I give you the last 47 years as proof.
      Marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana. This number increases to about 17 percent among those who start young and to 25-50 percent among people who use marijuana daily.[4]
      A. Marijuana is less addictive than coffee and it doesn’t matter if the addictive substance is legal and easily procured,,,addicts can grow their own.
      Drugged driving is a threat to our roadways. Marijuana significantly impairs coordination and reaction time and is the illicit drug most frequently found to be involved in automobile accidents, including fatal ones.[5]
      A. Where is your science that provews marijuana causes impairment,,you have none,,only propaganda and skewed statistics,,here is our science,,thanks to the federal government we know the truth.
      Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence
      “Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.”
      A> Where is your science and since marijuana is the # 1 illicit drug I sure am glad the least popular isnb

      The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers
      “There was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”
      REFERENCE: Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
      Report No. DOT HS 808 065, K. Terhune. 1992.

      Marijuana and actual driving performance
      “Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”
      REFERENCE: U.S. Department of Transportation study, 1993

      Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance
      “Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution”
      REFERENCE: University of Adelaide study, 1995

      Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes
      “There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.. The more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”
      REFERENCE: Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies; Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232, A. Smiley. 1999.

      “Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behaviour shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a ‘change’ from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect ‘impairment’ in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.”
      REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000.

      Cannabis And Cannabinoids – Pharmacology, Toxicology And Therapy
      “At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven”.
      REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002.,Toxicology%20And%20Therapy.pdf

      Cannabis: Our position for a Canadian Public Policy
      “Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk”

    • allan says:

      Now that there reply is straight out of Project Sam’s book. Who wrote that? Stupid Patrick?

      • claygooding says:

        Probably Kev-Kev

        The bottom line is that America could handle all their aleged hams easier than we can handle prohibition.

    • Servetus says:

      The rotting floor of prohibition is cracking and crumbling beneath their feet, and the ONDCP is still dancing like it’s 1971.

      With the publication of ONDCP’s patronizing response to the ‘opining’ in the New York Times, the ONDCP has gone down in public as the most openly self-centered, dysfunctional, ignorant and corrupt bureaucracy in American history. The NY Times will pick them to pieces now.

      • kaptinemo says:

        The ONDCP’s version of a WW2 Japanese banzai charge. And just as doomed to failure.

        (Facepalm, shaking head sadly) They just don’t get it. It’s over. Game over. How can they honestly expect to win with well over half the population having made it plain in poll after poll that they have no further interest in this insanity? That they want cannabis legal again?

        Do they honestly think with having been shown to have played fast and loose with the facts before that their intended target audience will do anything but fold their arms in exasperation and roll their eyes Heavenward? THE TARGET AUDIENCE IS NOT LISTENING ANYMORE. They’re suffering from a roaring case of BSF (BS Fatigue), and can tolerate no more.

        I suppose now we’ll get the holy-rollers and glossolalians dragged out of the Crazy Uncle attic next. They’ve shot their last wad, ‘science’-wise.

        I feel so embarrassed for them. They are exiting the realm of pathos and entering the realm of bathos. They’ve really lost it, now.

  28. thelbert says:

    the fools should have thought twice about prohibiting something that sells itself. a hundred years of never once questioning their own assertions. a hundred years of lies becoming so old that anybody can see through to the rotten inner filling.

  29. primus says:

    TAP damn it, or I’ll break your arm.

Comments are closed.