Quote of the day

“Marijuana Arrests are the engine driving the War on Drugs”

Quote from: Watch Pusha T’s PSA Supporting Cali Marijuana Bill

Well said. It’s one of the reasons that drug policy reformers have focused so much on marijuana. It is not only the most popular illicit drug, but it is also the reason that most drug warriors have budgets for their war. Without the volume of arrests for marijuana, they would have much harder time justifying the budgets for drug task forces, and the loss of the huge amounts of cash involved the illegal marijuana market would cripple the asset forfeiture business.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we don’t or shouldn’t focus on the other aspects of the drug war (and we must continue to actively oppose the drug war even after marijuana is legalized), but from a practical standpoint, opposing marijuana prohibition has been a critical part of any comprehensive drug policy reform movement.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Quote of the day

  1. Freeman says:

    There’s no doubt about it. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch just completed a study that showed that more people are arrested for marijuana than all violent crimes combined.

    Think about that for a minute. We’re busier protecting “The Children” from nebulous harms of a natural plant that not even the nation’s foremost “experts” on drug abuse can coherently articulate than we are protecting the vulnerable from the very real and well-understood harms of violent crime.

  2. Uncle Albert's Nephew says:

    I’m not sure that Pusha T’s right that weed won’t be a probation/parole violation. Isn’t alcohol a violation now?

  3. Matthew Meyer says:

    “If California’s Prop 64 passes, no one will ever be incarcerated for marijuana again.”

    That’s utterly false.

    Under Prop 64, an adult over 21 can get 6 months in county jail for possessing over an ounce of cannabis.

    What’s more, cultivation and distribution can still bring three years’ incarceration under state law. That’s a real concern for those who live in counties that ban commercial cannabis, which includes many of those counties in far northern California that are major cannabis producers.

    Those growers, working with unlicensed dispensaries, will represent the major competition to the new system, and will therefore also be the major targets of its law enforcement efforts.

    This kind of pro-64 propaganda lends credence to the notion that its proponents will say anything to get it passed so that the investors behind them can take over the California cannabis market.

    • darkcycle says:

      Still better than what is there now Matthew….for all but a few who have profited from the current system of soft prohibition in Cali. And far from a corporate takeover, they have gone to a lot of trouble including micro licenses and sticking very closely to the language of the new Medical regulations….which tell me they are actually TRYING not to exclude established players…..it’s light years better than what we have here in Washington. I say get it passed and massage it later.

      • Matthew Meyer says:

        In what sense is it better than what exists now, DC? You know state arrests for possession have fallen 90%, don’t you?

        It may compare favorably to WA’s laws, I don’t know…but in any case that’s not exactly a high bar to leap over.

        If you look at the way 64 apportions the monies from the cannabis fund, you’ll see the series of payoffs to special interests to get their support, like 10 million yearly to the CHP for DUI equipment and research.

        Although 64 does include language that allows the legislature to amend it–usually not an option with voter-approved initiatives–there is also language locking in certain expenditures for good, and for 10 years with others.

        Forget about protecting small businesses. Sierra Nevada did just fine going up against A-B and now InBev and all the rest without special laws. What they benefitted from was a change in the regulatory environment that really allowed small breweries to get going. Ken Grossman of SNBC has credited the 1978 legalization of home brewing with making that possible. California today is changing regulations left and right to allow food trucks to park outside warehouse breweries so you can have food and beer together without needing so much infrastructure; to allow growlers from one brewery to be used at another; to even allow barber shops to serve beers to customers while they get their shave and a haircut.

        Maybe we can expect a similar shift with cannabis…it only took 45 YEARS for alcohol (1933-1978).

        Maybe the home-grow provisions will help?

        Prop 64 homegrow is a dead letter, did you know that, DC?

        Each household can grow up to 6 plants, and no one can ban it. Nope. All they can do is place “reasonable regulations” upon your home grow. Regulations like the kind now used by cities and counties to require that medical cannabis be grown only in inspected, code-compliant outbuildings fitted with air filters, alarms, and rigid walls. Such structures are like unicorns in the places they’re required–no one’s ever seen one. They’d cost probably a few tens of thousands at a minimum to comply, just so you can grow your six plants guaranteed by state law.

        I wonder whether you have contemplated the kind of situation it’s going to lead to here, with many prime growing counties on the Ban Wagon–Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Yuba, and others. Low-income people who’ve supplemented their living with cannabis cultivation will be forced to choose between relinquishing their source of income and being unambiguously in the black market. I hardly think that’s a good starting point.

        Proponents made a political calculation to get the thing passed by compromising with LE and other special interests, with little regard to the possibility that leaving so much of Northern California under cultivation and commercial activity bans will seriously undermine attempts to create a controlled market in California.

        (Not to mention that it will represent a serious injustice to cannabis producers in this part of the state–yet another example of the invisibility of rural Nor Cal to the urban population centers.)

        Just. Can’t. Don’t. Won’t.

        • darkcycle says:

          Matthew. People are still getting arrested for cannabis. Simple Possession. In California. 100 dollar fine, but it puts you into the justice system and possession is still illegal. It is just as easily re-criminalized….the laws are still on the books. To pretend otherwise is a self serving lie. The situation now as to growers in most of those counties you mention is that the Sheriffs have SO MANY options for enforcement, that they basically can just pick a plot at random every day to raid. And they do. They will never run out of people to raid. The “safety” you seem so comfortable with is completely illusory.
          Nobody should have to go to jail for possessing plant. There are provisions for micro and artisan grows in 64 that I can only wish we had included. AND EVERYBODY GETS SIX PLANTS. I’m medical and only allowed four.
          I get it’s scary. I get the sense of panic that comes with the idea you might lose your garden. You won’t. You might have to jump through some hoops, but the big players are deliberately excluded for the first phase, so you get the advantage.
          64 looks like it will pass, and it’s the best law anybody has had the opportunity to vote on yet. You should get behind it. Remember, I was a big booster of I502….I knew what would likely come to pass….but, back when we were the first, it was too important that we legalize…damn the details. Well, you guys are benefiting from what we learned…but it’s still too important to legalize. Especially in Cali. As goes California, so goes the rest of the country.
          I support 64. You should too.

    • Atrocity says:

      If anyone has some solid refutation of what appears here, I’d be very appreciative.

      I had fully intended to vote yes on 64 pretty much automatically, but there are some points at that link that make me nervous, though if I were 100% convinced they’re true I wouldn’t be asking for guidance.

      What I do know as a lifelong Californian is that the current system actually is rather shockingly wide-open. I say “shockingly” because until it was spelled out the way it is in the above-referenced semi-rant I don’t think I ever really fully thought about it or appreciated it.

      I do know that the author’s fundamental point that pretty much any adult can become a patient (or, as some would have it, a “patient”) and, once that status is attained, can buy and grow and consume as much as they want is valid. I also know that the current $100 fine/infraction/ticket decriminalization has been a very good thing and a big part of its success has been because there’s no lower age limit. Non-adults are no longer being tossed into the “justice” system in such large numbers over cannabis.

      I’m not trying to start an argument over this because I really am genuinely confused. I would absolutely love to see full-on recreational legalization everywhere, but not (assuming the rant is true) at the cost of harming patients or stealthily un-doing the other bits of genuine progress that California has experienced.

      As it stands now, I’m tempted to simply abstain. I assume it will pass without my vote and, if it doesn’t, that the worst downside is “sending the wrong message”. And I don’t mean that too sarcastically—I understand that voting in a less than ideal legalization scheme in a state this prominent would send an enormous message. Yet at the same time I can’t help thinking “First, do no harm…”

      • Tony Aroma says:

        I don’t know if any or all of that is true. Regardless, a failure for Prop 64 would be a major setback for legalization. Especially since it would be the second time CA defeated a legalization initiative. Even if it doesn’t make things better, most people will see it as a victory for legalization and a big blow to prohibition. I’d bet most prohibitionist politicians would see it that way, along with most of the uninformed public. So I think, even if passing Prop 64 is a setback in some ways, it would be a HUGE symbolic win for the legalization movement. Or it could be a HUGE symbolic loss is it doesn’t pass.

        • Atrocity says:

          I don’t know if any or all of that is true. Regardless, a failure for Prop 64 would be a major setback for legalization. Especially since it would be the second time CA defeated a legalization initiative. Even if it doesn’t make things better, most people will see it as a victory for legalization and a big blow to prohibition. I’d bet most prohibitionist politicians would see it that way, along with most of the uninformed public. So I think, even if passing Prop 64 is a setback in some ways, it would be a HUGE symbolic win for the legalization movement. Or it could be a HUGE symbolic loss is it doesn’t pass.

          I certainly agree about the symbolism or optics or whatever we want to call it. And clearly the prohibitionist sKKKum have lined up to oppose it. What still concerns me is the apparently real possibility that we’re so worried about what it looks like that we’re willing to throw the 18-21 year olds (amongst others) under the bus. (One of the things that doesn’t get talked about enough is that the current $100 ticket system has no lower age limit. Its passage resulted in dramatically lower juvenile “crime” statistics.)

          Again, I’m not saying “Vote no!” I’m saying that I’m really confused about what will ultimately cause the least real-world practical (as opposed to symbolic) harm.

          I’m also a bit concerned about the fact that 64 doesn’t tie the government’s hands and can be amended legislatively. Though if I were to be fair, I’d have to remember and point out that the current nearly-legal situation is the result of legislation signed by a Republican governor. At the time it felt a lot like a nasty little ploy to defang Proposition 19 and it arguably worked, though it’s really difficult for me to criticize the outcome too severely. So while I worry that giving the legislature and governor control could be bad, there’s certainly historical evidence that it might not be.

          To be clear, I want the stuff sold cheaply by the pound at farmers markets. I agree with the people saying it should be regulated like tomatoes. I just can’t decide if 64 gets us practically closer to or farther away from that.

          My brain hurts.

      • WalStMonky says:


        How does a doctor perform surgery without sticking a very sharp knife into his patient?

        If Prop 64 doesn’t pass the entire effort for regulated re-legalization is going to shrivel up and die. Hey, “liberal” California just said no, not once, but twice. The sycophants of prohibition don’t have the brain capacity needed to differentiate between objections to arcana in the body of the law and “California voters said merrywanna is bad, mmm-kay?”

        For crying out loud there’s always going to be some parts of the proposed laws that could be better. Gosh, wouldn’t it just be peachy if Prop 64 and Ms. Clinton manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Please don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. The thought of President Trump is bad enough without the know nothing prohibitionist cohort acting like Popeye after eating a can of spinach.

      • free radical says:

        Yes on 64! For gods sake, man!

        All those myths have been debunked. The entrenched cannabis industry and their allies in law enforcement will say *anything* to try to scare voters away from a perfectly good legalization bill. It is a marked improvement over why we currently have.

        Think it’s bad? Where is your better initiative? All the people screaming how bad it is have failed to organize themselves and sponsor a better bill. They had every chance to do so, they didn’t, and here we are.

        Still think it’s bad? Then pledge to do the work to improve it. Organize and sponsor voter initiatives that improve the parts you think are bad.

        But FGS, do not let this opportunity slip by, or it will be a long wait indeed.

        • Mouth says:

          Voting no on 64 is a knife in the back to those of us who live in states where the government now treats growing pot/making hash with the same punishments as cooking meth: manufacturing plus cultivation is a double whammy.

          No on prop 64 kills Mexicans.

          No on prop 64 spreads ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeda victories across the earth, because it devours the stepping stones that will eliminate the 1961 U.N. Singles, therefore not fostering European legalization–a region of the world that consumes illegal drugs from enemy held regions where hashish and opium thrive. If California legalizes, then more states will do the same, which means America will and then other nations will, which will disrupt black market funding badly needed by terrorists.

          No on 64 is a vote Yes for Cartel Violence and Sharia Law . . . cause and effect can sometimes be a bitch.

          The cartels and radical Islam are not friends to women and women’s rights. A vote no on 64 is a vote yes for destroying a woman’s right to control her own destiny.

  4. Servetus says:

    Marijuana arrests are the driving engine like the little choo-choo train engine that could—and did. If arresting people for a weed can bring down an entire branch of government, what does it say about that government?

    Prohibition of marijuana is a failed template upon which all other prohibitions will be compared and countered. The anti-prohibition revolt exists today largely due to the government’s marijuana hoax. Other revolts will follow. Rebellions will hinge on what’s been learned repealing cannabis prohibition.

    Every day marijuana and other drug arrests add martyrs to the mix of drug war victims, people who turn radical and revolutionary, who act to undermine the despots, tyrants, and authoritarians who by tradition then flee to political asylums in South America. Sanctuaries may become rare in the future. Given the dreadful problems caused by drug wars in South and Central America, prohibitionist asylum-seekers may find themselves not welcome there.

  5. BoyScout says:

    Remember Jim Jones and his kool-aid kids
    When Chicago Jesus put Hillary’s eyes on the skids
    Or the partisan pony with its dog-whistle code
    That rode into Friday looking to get blowed
    Yes, there’s more riddles than answers
    But far less cripples than dancers
    Are those really my socks behind the couch?

  6. Servetus says:

    Mississippi’s refusal to follow through on its program for testing and treating welfare recipients who test positive for drugs illustrates the hypocritical nature and intent of such programs. Politicians in Mississippi are using non-cost-effective drug testing to knock welfare recipients off welfare, thereby appealing to voters or supporters who view the recipients as freeloaders and welfare queens:

    3-November-2016–According to supporters, the reasoning behind the new drug testing regime was to help people who may be struggling with substance abuse. “It’s about helping these people become better moms, become better dads, become better community members,” Representative Sam Mims said during the legislature’s debate over the bill.

    That was the reasoning Gov. Phil Bryant (R) gave when he signed it into law. “[A]dding this screening process will aid adults who are trapped in a dependency lifestyle so they can better provide for their children,” he said in a statement at the time. “This measure will help make a positive difference for families impacted by substance abuse.”

    But of the 56 people who have been cut off from welfare in the last two years due to the drug testing requirements, not a single one has undergone substance abuse treatment.

    According to the Daily Journal, 307 people have been tested for drugs since August of 2014, and 17 have tested positive. Another 39 people were deemed to be likely to have a substance abuse problem through a questionnaire but refused to take a test, thereby also getting cut off from benefits.

    But none of them have gotten treatment, and the state hasn’t put forward any extra money for substance abuse programs.[…] The state has instead claimed that Medicaid would cover such treatment.

    Yet providing access to treatment was written into the drug testing law. “If an adult recipient tests positive for the unlawful use of a drug after taking a drug test, the person shall be given a list of approved substance use disorder treatment providers,” the law reads. Recipients can only continue to receive welfare benefits if they enter into and stick with a treatment program. If they either fail to enter one or don’t adhere to a treatment plan, their assistance will be terminated and they will be banned from reapplying “for a certain amount of time.”[…]


  7. NorCalNative says:


    On Death and Drugs. I administered my dad’s Hospice-prescribed end-of-life medications recently until he passed away.

    Hospice also allowed me to continue my dad’s sublingual hash-oil tincture in the 1:1 ratio which was important to me. In fact, one of the hospice nurses requested to administer dad’s spray.

    Morphine, methadone, Lorazepam, and cannabis oil were my dad’s last medications for his Stage IV prostate cancer. The last two days it was 5 mg of liquid morphine about ever two hours plus methadone twice a day.

    My dad was a collector and it probably hurt his pain-management. I found his Vicodin stash of over a couple hundred pills. He wasn’t abusing it. I know this because I lived with him. Three pills per day max and NEVER more than one at a time. (For metastatic cancer pain, thanks Kaiser Fucks).

    I didn’t need to think long and hard on what to do with his stash. I made sure it was destroyed properly and I had Hospice do it. I was tempted because I have a history of substance abuse and I could have had a nice little run on those Vicodin.

    My cannabis bias came into play a bit I guess because I now have chart notes in the medical record showing I asked to have narcotics destroyed. It may come into play later in future dealings with the medical profession.

    Grief can make people reach out for the kind of emotional relief provided by opiates. I just didn’t want to have that happen. A few pills? Piss off. A couple of hundred? You could play around awhile.

    Dad left me a home in wine country and a two-year-old car. My micro-grow days are OVER.

    When I was stressed dealing with my dad these past couple of weeks, lurking and sneaking a peak here offered some relief. So fuck the drug war, thanks DRW and the couch.

    What happened to DdC? Can I still call Duncan, Duncan?

    • Windy says:

      Kudos to you. You did a very hard thing, taking care of your dad that way, you are entitled to your grief. Don’t let anyone tell you how (or how long) to grieve, everyone has to do it their own way and in their own time. I’ve been through it too many times already, so I empathize with you.

    • I offer my condolances NorCalNative.

      I am very glad that your father was able to use cannabinoids till the end, and I am sure your time with him was a bit longer and of better quality than it would have been otherwise.

      I guess I can relate very well with you and your father. I have been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of prostate cancer and so far I have been able to use cannabis along with my chemo for the bone cancer that has spread from my prostate.

      Right now my hopes are high, my latest from the doctor is that my PSA scores are now lower than his, my lung cancer now appears not to be cancer (since it refuses to spread), and he wants to see me 3 months from now instead of starting up a new round of chemo.

      I attempt to use cannabis in every form I can daily and constantly. I produce my own RSO when I can. My supply was interrupted recently because of a house fire (and the police hubbub over my plants). My first grow in my new house is about to be harvested.

      When I was diagnosed my doctor (who was leaving for Florida that day) told me on the way out the door that he gave me about 2-3 years with treatment. So far it’s been one year since that day.

      I have hope that I will be able to see many more years thanks to cannabis. I want to be around long enough to see through to an end this silly, destructive drug war.

      I want to tell you NorCalNative that your father was a lucky man indeed to have a son like you by his side to see him through the hard parts and help with the cannabinoid medications.

      The engine that drives this drug war – arresting people for using marijuana – must end.

    • darkcycle says:

      I am sorry for your loss NorCal. Hang in there.

    • NorCalNative says:

      Thanks for the very kind responses, this is an awesome place.

    • Hope says:

      I am sorry for your loss, NorCalNative.

      Oh, Thinking Clearly, I’m so sorry to hear about that lousy diagnosis.

      May grace and mercy abound for you both.

  8. Windy says:

    Want a pro legalization president?

    Gary Johnson has no criminal history; he is suffering no FBI investigations into his life, public or private; he is not hated by anyone. Unlike BOTH other candidates, he HAS experience, 8 years of experience in a government executive position as Governor of NM, and he left his State in FAR better condition (in EVERY issue) at the end of his second term than when he was inaugurated for his first term. He was a libertarian, then, but ran as a republican for the position of governor of NM, which was a strongly democrat State, and the people liked what he did in his first term so much they reelected him to a second term. I think that says a LOT about his ability and his experience. He also has a very even temper, unlike BOTH other candidates (Hillary talks about Trump not having the temperament to be POTUS, but have you seen some of her tirades against her staff, her SS guards, the media? she’s just off the charts mean and out of control); he’s reasonable, he’s had experience building a construction business from the ground up (no “small million $ loan” from his father to help) and running it successfully for years. Obviously he IS the BEST person for the job!

    Please cast your vote for Johnson!

    • Atrocity says:

      Gary Johnson has no criminal history; he is suffering no FBI investigations into his life, public or private; he is not hated by anyone. Unlike BOTH other candidates, he HAS experience, 8 years of experience in a government executive position as Governor of NM

      “I guess I wasn’t meant to be president.” –Gary Johnson
      “I’m not sure anyone’s more qualified to be president of the United States than Hillary Clinton” –Bill Weld, Johnson’s running mate

  9. kaptinemo says:

    VICE has a very good article on the anti-reform forces: WEED KILLERS; Here’s who’s bankrolling the fight against legal marijuana

    “Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the largest anti-legalization group in the country, said the cash gap is “not surprising” and “always what we expected.” He noted that much of the pro-legalization money in California has come from entrepreneurs seeking to capitalize on what is projected to be a $6.5 billion market for marijuana by 2020.

    “These guys don’t care about ending the war on drugs,” said Sabet. “They care about making money.” (Methinks dear Kevvie is once more engaging in the practice of psychological projection.)

    But looking across the country, it’s clear that self-interest — and the fear of lost profits — also fuels the effort to keep weed outlawed. Tied for the largest single donation to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, the campaign against the state’s recreational marijuana proposal, was $500,000 from Insys Therapeutics, a pharmaceutical company known for selling the painkiller fentanyl in the form of a sublingual spray. The company and some former employees have faced lawsuits and criminal charges over the way the drug was marketed.

    Insys has said it opposes legalization because federal regulators have not approved marijuana for medical use and because the proposed law “fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.” But the company is also developing products that use pharmaceutical cannabinoids, a synthetic version of marijuana.” (Emphasis mine – k.)

    I know the LD-50 for a great many drugs, but what about the LD-50 for powerlust and hypocrisy?

    • WalStMonky says:


      Insys is in the process of imploding. They reported “earnings” this morning and life is not good for their stuck bagholders. Normally I’d say it was damn irresponsible of them to squander $500k considering their proximity to the Federal bankruptcy court but it may be that the only thing that may keep them from getting buried is the very obvious bias of the FDA for synthetic cannabinoids over phytocannabinoids. $500 million for anything else wouldn’t change they’re very likely demise but as a show of “good faith” to the FDA could make all the difference to their survival.

      If anyone cares I think that GW Pharma has seen its peak and is setting up to be an epic short sale. Yes, I know that everyone else thinks FDA approval for Epidiolex is a given. Just like FDA approval for Sativex, imminent since 2010. Charlie Brown will never get to kick that football.

      Both companies will do what they will without my interests. My next stop is the next generation of vehicular transportation.

  10. CJ says:

    Hey guys. I know I’ve said it before but what drug reform needs is a militants wing, a pseudo militia, given all the insane amounts of international militarys,police forces which especially in the US amounts to basically just another military organization. the sophistication of their weaponry. I mean look at Duerte in the East. They have called it a war for decades and certainly in some respects they have waged it like one. I’ve often said we should fight back. that’s why I think we should for an organization I think we should call it the Drug User Defense Enterprise aka DUDE. I believe I should have rank as El Generalo Supremo Mundo. I believe with diligence we will have success in the fields of battle and then it won’t be long until our foes tremble and say “DUDE! The dudes are coming the dudes are coming! !! DUDE!!”

    • BoyScout says:

      Great idea, CJ!
      Try these on for size:


      The Institute of Terrorists Stoners


      Warrior Action Non-conformist Killers


      Stoner People’s United Knockabouts


      The BadAss Trippers And Rip-Deal Society

  11. Not funny CJ. I can see Petes blog being put on a homeland security terrorist watchlist as we speak. Not a good idea CJ. Not good at all.

    We are here to end the drug war, not start another one.

    • jean valjean says:

      I suspect it’s too late to worry about being put on a watch list. Ever since 9/11 at least, the random wars on drugs and terror have been conflated in the minds of government propagandists. We’re all being watched all the time is my default assumption.

  12. jean valjean says:

    “If Clinton’s drug policies can be said to be a continuation of Obama’s, Trump’s drug policies are more similar to a return to Nixon’s.”

    Either way we all get screwed.


  13. Servetus says:

    As the 2016 election bears down on U.S. voters facing a choice in legalizing either medical or recreational marijuana sales, consideration should be given to our neighbor on the southern border, Mexico. A vote for legalization would help end the violence happening there.

    Mexico has suffered mightily from the U.S. prohibition policies and economics foisted upon it. The U.S. government will prefer seeing innocent Mexican residents die or disappear than admit it’s made the greatest sociopolitical mistake in drug policies since the dawn of the inquisitions and witch hunts. It’s up to the citizens now. A vote for legalized drugs is a vote for life:

    It’s anybody’s guess how many victims of violence are still buried somewhere in the Juarez Valley on the Mexico-U.S. border. For starters, there is the still largely unexcavated Navajo Arroyo, where the remains of 18 young women who went missing from nearby Ciudad Juarez have been recovered and identified since late 2011, according to the local daily Norte.

    “If Ayotzinapa is an emblematic case, Mexico is filled with emblematic cases. The Navajo Arroyo is another one,” said Dr. Julia Monarrez, a Ciudad Juarez sociologist who’s studied the disappearance and murder of women in the border region for decades.

    The Navajo Arroyo victims mainly disappeared during 2009-2010, when Juarez and its adjacent rural valley paralleling the Rio Grande were engulfed in extreme violence and access to the valley was controlled by armed bands of criminals or police and military contingents.

    Strongly suspecting more victims rest in the huge desert gully, dozens of human rights activists, relatives of victims and supporters fanned out across the Navajo Arroyo last month looking for more remains. Because of ongoing violence, Chihuahua state and federal police agents provided security.[…]


  14. DEA Action Continues Catch-22 of Marijuana Research
    By Lynn R. Webster, MD at PainMedicineNews

    … “In theory, the DEA supports efforts to research the medical potential of marijuana—an agency representative pointed out that the DEA has never denied a request to conduct research that was filed using FDA protocols. However, the DEA may be operating with a law enforcement bias in keeping with its role to enforce the CSA and, perhaps, reinforcing a stigma that dates from the Nixon administration (the 1970s) when the agency was charged with preventing drug abuse.” …

    Here is the key. Preventing drug abuse should be taken away from the DEA. Their only function should be to prevent the illegal black marketing of pharmaceuticals.

    Put preventing drug abuse where it belongs – schools, families and churches, not governments. Harm prevention in the hands of responsible medical pros accepted.

    Criminal acts are the province of justice. Intentional harm to others should be their realm of activity, not sniffing for cannabis.

  15. Servetus says:

    WaPo has a good article by Christopher Ingraham on Sheldon Adelson and others opposing marijuana law reforms called “A casino magnate is spending millions to fight legal marijuana in three states ”. In it Mason Tvert suggests a plausible motive for Sheldon’s Quixotic battles against marijuana:

    October 26, 2016–Mason Tvert, director of communications for the pro-legalization group Marijuana Policy Project, suggested Adelson’s opposition is fueled by his business interests.

    “If you like drinking alcohol and playing blackjack at the casino, Mr. Adelson wants you to be his guest,” Tvert said in an email. “If you prefer to consume marijuana while playing video games in the privacy of your home, Mr. Adelson wants you to be in jail.”


    Everyone in Nevada knows hippies don’t gamble, and sex is free. The specter of a hippie/cannabis infested Las Vegas must absolutely horrify a wingnut Nevada casino boss like Adelson.

    • jean valjean says:

      So one of Adelson’s sons died of an o.d. If only he’s been using cannabis that would never have happened, but obviously Sabet convinced him that it was the merrywanna wot done it. Also, that’s the last time I buy anything from Discount Tires.

  16. Santa Claus Advocates Medical Marijuana After North Pole Bans Sale

    NBC News – http://tinyurl.com/hs79frk

    … “What many do not know is that Santa is a cancer patient and marijuana helps him ease his pain. With the ban on sale, Santa will have to grow his own marijuana.” …

    Even Santa knows.

  17. Servetus says:

    Fake anti-marijuana ads are being distributed that appear to be from the Hillary Clinton political camp, but aren’t. They’re from Trump trolls who want to make HC look bad to younger voters who support cannabis legalization:


    • jean valjean says:

      With Wasserface working behind the scenes for the Hillary campaign it almost could be true.

    • Freeman says:

      Looks like they borrowed a few lines from noted Democrat k’Lieman about ruined futures and “marijuana is not medicine”. Plenty of Dems on board the stop that pot train, lending an air of plausibility to the lie campaign.

  18. One Horse Jake says:

    A state advisory board that makes recommendations to the Health Department on New Mexico’s rapidly expanding Medical Cannabis Program voted 5-1 Friday in favor of adding “opiate use disorder” to the list of conditions that qualify, a move one health professional said could transform the state’s landscape of addiction.

    Briscoe, a native of Española, said about 25 percent of her patients struggling with opioid use disorder have told her that cannabis soothes their cravings, relieves their pain and helps them stay off opiates. Three of her colleagues who certify patients for medical marijuana cards estimated that together, they’ve seen about 400 patients successfully kick opioid addictions with the help of cannabis.


  19. Atrocity says:

    Sigh…I wrote a polite post responding to the responses but when I went back to edit ONE word to make it slightly less repetitive, it was flagged as spam and removed.

    One point I made was that I very much understand the need to send a message, but I’m worried that sending the message we want to send by throwing minors under the bus maybe sends a message I’d prefer not to.

    One of the really surprising things about California’s current $100 fine is that there’s no lower age limit. After it had been in place for a couple years, the number of juveniles entering the “justice” system plummeted. That’s kind of a big deal and something I’d hate to un-do. 64 appears to leave the $100 fine in place for simple possession for those over 18 and under 21, but the under-18 crowd enters The System again for “education”, “counseling” or “community service”. Yes, it could be worse (and there’s no certainty that the cops will actually bother arresting kids when the penalty isn’t that interesting), which is why I’m more on the fence than actively opposed. In fact, I want to be doubly clear on that: I’m not suggesting that I want people to vote no. I just have an annoying tendency to see both sides this time around. And I honestly believe that California currently has a far more wide-open system than many realize or appreciate. What we will be calling legalization looks like it may actually be more restrictive than what we’ve already got, though whether that’s a genuine problem as a real-world practical matter is obviously questionable.

    And while the fact that 64 can be amended by the legislature makes me nervous, I have to be fair and admit that the current law was passed by the legislature and signed by a Republican governor. The timing made it clear that it was likely a ploy to render Proposition 19 irrelevant (and it may well have worked) but there’s little arguing that it was a good thing on its own merits.

    Anyway, I could drive myself crazy with this and probably will. In the end, it’s likely to pass and at the very least seriously annoy Kevin Sebutt and Dianne Fuckstain. That alone counts for a lot.

    And maybe, just maybe, after it’s been in place for a while and the sky doesn’t fall, things will get loosened even further.

    • Pete says:

      No idea why that ended up in the spam folder. Found it and retrieved it for you.

    • One Horse Jake says:

      It happens quite often, but I have a remedy that works for me: I go back on my browser until I get to my original post/response and do the editing there before re-posting.

  20. Servetus says:

    New elements of the neurochemistry of stress are revealed by “a team led by John Dani, PhD, chair of the department of Neuroscience in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania ” who studied stressed-out drunken rats. Their findings point to clues concerning PTSD and ways to achieve effective stress relief or control:

    4-NOV-2016 — The most interesting finding…is that after the stress, the reward circuitry looked normal at first glance when they examined the rats’ neurons. However, if the circuits were strongly used, in this case via consumption of ethanol, alterations to neurons were noticeable and the dopamine response to alcohol was blunted. The change in neuron physiology means that a specific set of neurons that are normally inhibitory flip and become excitatory. This flip alters the rats’ response to ethanol, making them consume more and more.

    To reverse the negative effects of the erroneous excitatory signal, the team chemically prevented the excitatory switch within the reward circuitry. This correction prevented the blunted alcohol-induced dopamine signal, causing the stressed rats to consume less alcohol. “We gave the rats a chemical called CLP290 to restore the stress-altered circuitry to normal, which in turn corrected the firing of the dopamine neurons.”

    From this, the team now has an inroad to observe how the reward circuitry is altered by stress, providing a model system to probe related brain physiology. “This line of research has implications for people with PTSD who have an increased risk for over-use of alcohol and drugs,” Dani said. The team is now talking with other researchers to study compounds that potentially normalize the firing of neurons in the brain’s reward system to help control the over-consumption of alcohol.

    AAAS Public Release: Penn animal study describes effect of stress on increased alcohol consumption due to changes in brain reward center, implications for better understanding roots of PTSD

    Prolonged stress kills, so controlling it is likely a survival instinct if not an imperative. Cannabis offers stress reduction with fewer side-effects compared to alcohol or Big Pharma’s line of horse tranquilizers. Stress control achieved by restoring stress altered circuitry looks to be a new frontier in molecular psychiatry.

    • Mouth says:

      After this election, the whole nation should have the option to get a cannabis prescription for stress and PTSD.

Comments are closed.