The 5 Dumbest Drug Laws in America

From banning the sale of magazines to regulating chemistry equipment, local and state drug warriors mainline stupidity.

(Page 3 of 5)

3.) In Louisianna, it's illegal for minors to buy magazines that talk about drugs

The Internet — from HighTimes.com to Youtube — can tell you everything you need to know about marijuana, from rolling the perfect cross joint to rigging the ideal indoor grow operation. Considering the wealth of information available online, you'd think Louisiana would have gotten rid of its law against allowing young people to buy publications about marijuana. You'd be wrong. 

A Louisiana law passed in 1977 (four years after the founding of High Times magazine) prohibits the "sale, distribution or making available to minors publications encouraging, advocating, or facilitating the illegal use of controlled dangerous substances."

In full, the law reads as follow:

No person shall sell, distribute or make available to a person under eighteen years of age any publication which has as its dominant theme articles or a substantial number of advertisements encouraging, advocating, or facilitating the illegal use of any substance classified as a controlled dangerous substance pursuant to Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950. 

No employee acting within the course and scope of his employment and who has no proprietary interest in the business shall be guilty of a violation of this Section unless he has actual knowledge of the contents of the publication.  

Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.  

That a law like this one exists in the Internet age is pretty silly, but it was equally awful 10, 20, and 30 years ago, when print was the only way to get an alternative take on our ruinous drug war. There's also something hypocritical about excluding publications that advertise and encourage the consumption of other arguably dangerous drugs, like alcohol and tobacco.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    God, I hate people.

  • Paul Ryan||

    Where's John, I need my dick sucked.

  • Brutus||

    Blondie, punk?? The world upside-down...

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Punk" is a little strong, but listen to Plastic Letters. It's definitely a lot harder than the pop stuff she quickly moved toward.

  • Ska||

    The Clash is punk also. But most of their discography is a mash up of rock, reggae, rap, even disco....

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, punk is not just loud guitars and drums played badly.

  • NebulousFocus||

    Cracked, is that you?

  • Ice Nine||

    The editor of High Times must have been smoking some strong stuff when he OKd that Blondie headline given that Blondie is two people.

  • NeonCat||

    Ask 9 out of 10 people to identify Blondie and they would identify her. The tenth would point to Dagwood's wife.

  • ||

    Poor Chris Stein. Debbie gets all the recognition. Plus Debbie was in Videodrome. Which by the way, is being remade.

    I understand the financial reasons for remakes. I do. I may not like it, but I get it. But certain movies...Videodrome? Really? What the fuck is even the point? It's an obscure, demented cult classic. Do they really think that its name is going to get them anything other than hate from its dedicated fans? And from everyone else who hasn't seen it, what does the name get them?

  • Randian||

    given that Blondie is two people.

    If you are going to have a singular name and make your lead singer look like that name, this is what happens.

    See also: Alice Cooper.

  • Ice Nine||

    Of course. One would think however that an editor of a pop culture-focused publication would know better.

  • Reformed Republican||

    These laws might be unfair or infuriating, but they are not dumb. I am pretty sure they serve their purpose as designed.

  • Tim||

    A modern society needs scapegoats.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    You mean keep the criminal justice cabal busy and rich beyond the dreams of avarice?

  • edcoast||

    So Reason can't be sold to minors in Nawlins then?

  • Randian||

    Speaking of:

    In Louisianna, it's illegal for minors to buy magazines that talk about drugs
  • Tim||

    I have to show ID to buy cold medicine. In Vermont. I can walk around all day with an assault rifle but my runny nose has to answer to Uncle Sammy.

  • Rich||

    No employee acting within the course and scope of his employment and who has no proprietary interest in the business shall be guilty of a violation of this Section unless he has actual knowledge of the contents of the publication.

    Emphasis added. Do the officious clowns who created this law have "actual knowledge" of its contents?

  • Seanrude||

    I am pretty sure the Five Dumbest Drug Laws could have fit on a single page, two pages max. I understand the need for page hits, but one drug law per page is abusive. Think of the strain on my mouse. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF MY MOUSE!!!!!!

  • Zeb||

    Shouldn't the number one be the federal Controlled Substances Act?

  • wareagle||

    where would be without the obligatory "drug laws are stupid" story. Yes, they are. And?

  • An0nB0t||

    Better that we dedicate our attention to pomo games spoofing city planning.

  • tiffany||

    In the early stages of a relationship with a guy 25 years my junior (I am 45, he is 20), when we met on cougar dating site,~~~ (C_o_u_G_a_r_K_i_s_s)~~~~ I have to say that the comment about these guys unable to get with a girl their own age has to be way off. My man is very sexy, hot and popular and I’m amazed that he wants to be with me…but also believe he does. My main concern is not other people but my family of 3 children age 10 to 17, do any others have stories of “what the family thinks”?

  • ||

    The U.S. was unable to ban alcohol without a constitutional amendment. Drinkable alcohol does not occur in nature; While some alcohol is naturally occurring, drinking it will make you very sick or very dead.

    Marijuana is a wholly natural substance; People literally light part of the plant on fire, there is no processing beyond drying (which can and does happen in nature).

    So if banning a wholly man-made substance requires a constitutional amendment, and the parts of the constitution that required that amendment are the same now as they were then, how can marijuana possibly be illegal now?

  • ||

    I suspect it has to do with legislators and even common folk having a deeper understanding and vastly more respect for the Constitution.

  • joebanana||

    Easy, by violating the constitution. Just as the constitution doesn't call for, or even mention police, to enforce governmental policy. And it forbids a standing army, which police are.

  • FreeLibertine||

    I've got to move out of Florida.

  • Hope||

    In Oregon they have a list of numerous things, and if you have more than 3 things on the list, they automatically assume you are guilty of "distribution" of drugs. Some of the things on the list exist in nearly every household I know. Yet the average person does not know that they can be charged, railroaded and convicted of a crime they absolutely did not commit. Some of the things, (just to name a few) are: 1. A firearm, legal or not (every farmer I know has a shotgun)
    2. More than $300.00 in cash (even welfare recipients have that these days)
    3. Packaging materials (that includes sandwich or freezer bags in your kitchen)
    4. A scale (it doesn't matter if it's a postage scale or fruit scale)
    5. Any amount of any illegal substance (yes, ANY amount)
    And the list goes on, but you get the gist. While the amount of illegal substance may not be enough to prosecute you for possession, along with any 2 other things on their list you can now be charged with Distribution, (Which is a major felony) even if they have no other evidence against you.
    How's that for assinine laws? To top it all off, the sheep voted for this under the guise of "getting tough on crime". Now they have turned it into a police state and don't even know it. Until it affects them.............

  • joebanana||

    So, in New York, if you refuse to empty your pockets, and the cop does it for you then he's committing a crime.

  • josh||

    i love this....let's take odds on if they would actually be charged though? any takers....?

  • Kamagra Oral Jelly||

    Nice information on Dumbest Drug Laws in America. Thanks for sharing this information.

  • vaporizer vaporizers||

    that makes sens actually ,)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement