Sac Bee, SF Chron Join the Golden State's Shower of Anti-Prop. 19 Editorials

Eight days ago I rounded up the first five of what will be dozens of California daily newspapers to come out against Proposition 19, the country's first real marijuana-legalization ballot initiative with any chance at passing. A few more ostensibly left-leaning editorial boards have weighed in since then. My reader's guide:

Newspaper: Sacramento Bee
Sophomoric pot joke: "It is so poorly drafted, in fact, that it almost makes you wonder: What were they smoking?"
We-don't-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: "California ought to have a serious debate on whether to legalize marijuana for personal use. If lawmakers won't confront the issue, it might even be time for a ballot initiative to change the law. Proposition 19 is not the right one."
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "A mishmash of rules would inevitably result, only multiplying the mess created by medical marijuana dispensaries that have mushroomed across California. The laws governing marijuana should be uniform across the state, as they are for alcohol."
WTF: "The measure has no definition of what would constitute driving under the influence of marijuana"
Bonus random statism: "[I]t would put state law in direct conflict with federal law. The Obama administration, which has taken a hands-off attitude on medicinal marijuana, says legalization is 'a non-starter.' Gil Kerlikowske, the national drug czar, told California police chiefs in March that 'marijuana use is harmful,' that legalization would increase abuse and that its social costs would outweigh any possible tax revenue.

Newspaper: Ventura County Star
Sophomoric pot joke: Adjectives include "sketchy" and "crackpot."
We-don't-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: "There could be actual benefits from taxing and regulating the sale of cannabis. Supporters of Proposition 19 may want to try again later with a fully developed plan. In the meantime, voters should nix Proposition 19. Backers of the measure say it would generate billions of dollars in tax revenue for state and local governments, but that prediction is questionable for at least a couple of reasons."
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "The ballot measure would result in a patchwork of city-by-city, county-by-county regulations on sales, transportation, cultivation and consumption — with different tax rates and rules, making enforcement a nightmare."
Bonus random statism: "[I]t neglects to address appropriate state taxes and how those revenues would be used"

Newspaper: San Francisco Chronicle
Sophomoric pot joke: n/a
We-don't-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: "We agree with the architects of Prop. 19 that the 'war on drugs' - especially as it applies to marijuana - has been an abject failure. Laws against personal possession are widely ignored, they are enforced unevenly and they divert law enforcement and the courts from more pressing priorities. The result is a flourishing underground economy that allows marijuana to escape taxation and regulation while bestowing profits on criminal enterprises. If this were simply a referendum on the status quo, and the ability of a 21-or-older Californian to possess an ounce or less for personal use, it might be an easy 'yes' vote. It is not. It is a law that goes too far in endowing rights for the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana."
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "Prop. 19 allows the 58 counties and hundreds of cities to come up with their own taxation and regulatory schemes. In this critical element of legalization, Prop. 19 is more akin to the chaotic approach taken with medical marijuana than to the heavily taxed-and-regulated treatment of alcohol."
WTF: "Pre-employment testing would be banned." (Go ahead and read the proposition in full–nothing in there at all, as far as I can reckon.)
Bonus random statism: "The measure establishes no state controls over distribution and product standards"

The Chronicle's vote-no editorial is especially sweet given that the paper's much-hated columnist Debra Saunders, derided by many locals for her right-of-San-Francisco views, just came out with a pretty good column explaining why she's voting yes.

So have any California newspapers editorialized in favor of Prop. 19? So far I have found exactly one, and only because it was Tweeted to my attention: The Barstow Desert Dispatch, circulation not so much. Words of wisdom there: "Proposition 19 contributes to an effort to end a failed war that has consumed thousands of lives -- and entire lifetimes....It is time to end the fantasy that the government has the power or capability to end the private use of mind-altering substances. If it has not happened after 40 years it will never, ever happen."

I'll reiterate and update my previous pitch: If Dianne Feinstein, Meg Whitman, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dan Lungren, Steve Cooley, Lee Baca, 49 California congresspeople, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Dean Singleton's MediaNews empire are against it, the vote-yes commercials write themselves.

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.

  • Stevo Darrrkly||

    It be mighty risky, lad, havin' "golden" and "shower" so close t'gether in a headline.

  • Alan Kellogg||

    Your warning comes to late, for my dyslexia popped up and switched a pair of words in the post title so it read (in part), "...State's Golden Shower of anti-Prop 19 Editorials"

    Then I failed my Wisdom check and posted that here.

  • juris imprudent||

    No, I think it perfectly conjures the attitude of those who think they know best for everyone else. They even think they can convince the rest of us that it is raining.

  • Tim||

    I accidentially read it that way too.

  • Horrible Hugh Akston||

    If this were simply a referendum on the status quo, and the ability of a 21-or-older Californian to possess an ounce or less for personal use, it might be an easy 'yes' vote. It is not. It is a law that goes too far in endowing rights for the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana.

    Yar! The landlubbers at the Chronicle approve of consumption, but not possession or cultivation? Where do they expect Californians to get their pot?

    Or are they saying they want to legalize marijuana, but not really? Yar!

  • skr||

    um we tried that a couple of years ago and it went down in flames labeled the drug dealer's bill of rights.

  • DONDEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRROOOOO||

    WTF: "Pre-employment testing would be banned."

    It might not be explicitly banned, but it would become essentially unworkable due to the threat of discrimination lawsuits, since pot would now be in the same legal category as caffeine and other substances that private employers can't test for.

    Of course -- that's a pretty weak reason for keeping something illegal. I'd say we should just let employers hire on whatever basis they want to, but that's racist.

  • ||

    ::takes off Dondero fright mask::

  • ||

    since pot would now be in the same legal category as caffeine and other substances that private employers can't test for.

    Like alcohol?

  • ||

    Pre-employment tests, not post-accident tests.

  • P B||

    like nicotine?

  • LOL||

    It should be banned, it's none of the employer's business what i do in my home.

  • mattrue||

    no... WTF! Stop making up shit!

    If I chugged a gallon of 100% legal cough syrup before a drug test, and didn't get that forklift job as a result, a judge would not hear a second of my discrimination case!

    Or does discrimination now mean invoking common sense to make private decisions?

  • ||

    Pre-employment drug tests generally don't include alcohol.

    You're thinking of post-accident tests.

  • Matt Welch||

    From what I understood/remembered, the L.A. Times pre-employment test included alcohol.

  • ||

    Under ADA, pre-employment screening for non-illegal substances like alcohol is considered a medical examination and has to be justified by the particular nature of the job. So yeah, if you're applying for a job as a pilot it would be legal to discriminate on the basis of a pre-employment alcohol test, but most jobs are going to have a hard time justifying it.

  • mattrue||

    We don't need testing for most jobs! Just the ones where someone might get killed/abused the first couple of days on the job! Pilots, bus drivers, factory workers, heavy machinery operators, policemen, doctors, surgeons, childcare workers, etc....

    Basically any profession that should discriminate based on consumption of those substances will still be able to discriminate.

    "Pre-employment testing would be banned."

    Besides, how is that statement based in fact?

  • db the Bloody||

    So, matey, what was the minimum BAC for employment at that blasted rag, then?

  • prolefeed||

    If I chugged a gallon of 100% legal cough syrup before a drug test

    I'm thinking you'd have bigger problems than failing a drug test, such as failing a "breathing" or "heart beating" test.

    I'm guessing that's a lethal dose of several chemicals.

  • cynical||

    So, you support discrimination against the differently alive?

  • a||

    "I'd say we should just let employers hire on whatever basis they want to, but that's racist."

    And you would be right, but DC libertoids would fight that to the death, thus making it harder to ever legalize drugs.

  • Kolohe||

    WTF: "Pre-employment testing would be banned." (Go ahead and read the proposition in full–nothing in there at all, as far as I can reckon.)

    Them ink stained wretches be talking about Section 11304 section C

    [quote](c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.[/quote]

    This clause arrrrguably prohibits pre-screening, or in any way restricting employment as long as one is toking off the clock.

  • Matt Welch||

    There's a pretty wide gap between "banned" and "the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected," no?

  • Kolohe||

    I be neither a lawyer nor have a powdered wig to play one in the theatre, but I read the 'actually impair job performance' as requiring a affirmative case from and the burden of proof on the employer, and my take (from reading you guys!) is that CA's employment law and court system is fairly heavily tilted toward the employee. So though not de jure, a de facto ban.

  • Kolohe||

    And to be clear, I'm in favor of prop 19 (and initiatives like it in jurisdictions where I have a vote) but have always had a problem with this clause. It's also anti-freedom, just on the other side.

  • LOL||

    It's called doing their job, if they can't notice an employee isn't doing their job, all the rights, regulations, and laws in the world won't help them, but they'll hurt plenty of others.

  • Robert||

    But you're looking in the wrong place. It's the preceding sentence that in it's "discriminated against" provision would ban pre-employment testing. The second sentence wouldn't even be necessary otherwise.

  • Matt Welch||

    I obviously need to think more like a lawyer, but this doesn't, for example, change an employer's right to look at what the piss test says about your alcohol consumption, right? In which case I don't understand how this "bans" anything.

  • ||

    The employer only sees what the lab shows them. Despite the sitcom trope of "drug test shows a guy is pregnant" training many to think otherwise, pre-employs are merely reported as NEGATIVE or POSITIVE based on the list of drugs tested for -- they don't go into details. Pre-employs also don't include alcohol (though post-accident tests do).

  • Robert||

    There's really no pish test for etOH. Nobody does pre-employment testing for alcohol. Practically speaking, pre-employment testing is for cannabis catabolites, meaning it's a test for whether you've smoked a week or two or three previously. Or whether you're so into cocaine or opiates that you did them the night before. Basically they're looking to screen out the "kind of person" who smokes pot on, say, weekends.

  • ||

    Coke, heroin, and the more expensive drugs are also targeted (especially for cash-handling jobs) because they figure people with an expensive drug addiction are more likely to steal without regard to consequence.

  • ||

    There's a pretty wide gap between "banned" and "the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected," no?

    They're talking about pre-employment testing, which (obviously) doesn't test impairment on the job, so it wouldn't be permitted by the statute. The statute seems to allow post-accident or (possibly) random drug testing during employment.

  • thrashaholic||

    Post-accident screening for marijuana would be all but useless given its ability to get all nice and cozy with your fat cells for a month. Is he high now, or last week? Perhaps they'll use the saliva tests instead.

  • Kolohe||

    Avast, I forgot I be in a land of html and not bbcode.

  • thoreau||

    So, call me crazy, but isn't there already a statute for driving while impaired? If not, and if Prop 19 were to pass, how hard would it be for the legislature to craft an impaired driving statute?

    Seems to me that defining "driving while high" is not a fundamental stumbling block here.

  • ||

    But what is the legal standard for impairment?

  • thrashaholic||

    The same as it is for anything that you can't detect with a road-side device, i.e. every drug but alcohol. If you fail a field sobriety test you are imparied. Simple as that.

  • juris imprudent||

    Obviously something more stringent than simply driving like a dumbass - lest at least half of California drivers lose the privilege.

  • ||

    Feature, not a bug.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Drunk-driving laws predate blood-alcohol tests.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Wait, wait... why would the legislature need to "craft an impaired driving statute" in response to legalized weed? It's already illegal to drive when you are impaired by any substance.

  • ||

    You're thinking too clearly. You have now officially lost all rights to run for or hold a seat in the California legislature.

  • ||

    If this were simply a referendum on the status quo, and the ability of a 21-or-older Californian to possess an ounce or less for personal use, it might be an easy 'yes' vote. It is not. It is a law that goes too far in endowing rights for the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana."

    "Rights are granted by the State."

    Fuck you, San Francisco Chronicle.

  • thoreau||

    BTW, a state assemblyman was arrested for drunk driving while leaving a gay club (you get 2 guesses on which party he is, and the first guess doesn't count). So, maybe the "driving while high" law could be written as "Any person operating a motor vehicle in a manner similar to Roy Ashburn shall be guilty of driving while impaired."

  • Number Six the Vile||

    DoctARRRRGH T: You forgot to talk like a pirate. We'll let it slide this time, Matey, but if if happens again, I'll have to wake the parrot.

    Oh, and ARRRR!

  • Number Six the Vile||

    DoctARRRRGH T: You forgot to talk like a pirate. We'll let it slide this time, Matey, but if if happens again, I'll have to wake the parrot.

    Oh, and ARRRR!

  • Number Six the Vile||

    And now, since I double posted and used the threading, I shall go cast meself off the plank and into the briney sea, where I'll meet Davey Jones.

  • ||

    "Any person operating a motor vehicle in a manner similar to Roy Ashburn shall be guilty of driving while impaired and gay."

    FTFY. I live in Ashburn's district. Never, ever, vote for a career politician!

  • ||

    Hahaha, golden shower. Great analysis Matt.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Look, we're talking California here. Even if it passes, the ink won't be dry on this proposition before some judge declares the whole thing unconstitutional, anyway.

    Sauce for the goose, you know...

  • Robert||

    Who'd have standing? Someone who didn't pay the tax?

  • Bob||

    I love marijuana but i hate pot so vote yes and no just to be clear

  • David E. Gallaher||

    Here's my Ruthless golden shower on California newspapers: “Prohibition is an awful flop. We like it. It can't stop what it's meant to stop. We like it. It's left a trail of graft and slime It don't prohibit worth a dime It's filled our land with vice and crime, Nevertheless, we're for it.”
    - Franklin Pierce Adams (1881-1960)

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Ruthless, you beat me to that Golden Shower crack, and not by much, neither. Dammit! [shakes fist in the direction of WKRP]

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    So have any California newspapers editorialized in favor of Prop. 19?

    Orange County Register

    If the California Republican Party were serious about its oft-stated calls for limiting government, then it should be championing an initiative on the November ballot that would reduce government interference in our lives, increase the efficiency of law-enforcement, protect property rights and help fill the gaping hole in the state budget by following the principles of the marketplace.

    To make it even more enticing, this initiative echoes arguments advocated by free-market heroes Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley. Even better, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, the longtime market critic, has been stumping against this seemingly popular measure. Support for it could give the GOP an issue to exploit in the governor's race.

    Can The GOP Stop Weed Whackin'

  • ||

    Sweet idea, prop19 as a wedge issue! TWC, thanks for the link and kudos to the OC Register for having the balls to run an editorial that is rational. Orange county, the great bastion of conservatives in southern California, is to be commended for having even one journalist who can think

    Reason staff excluded, obviously, from my snarky comment.

  • David E. Gallaher||

    The reason Republicans are looking more and more like dodo birds is because they are all RINO's: Republican In Name Only. Hell I've forgotten what they are supposed to stand for. Did they ever stand for anything?
    .... Ruthless

  • Matt Welch||

    Great stuff, but an op-ed, not a house editorial. (Though I have high hopes for the OC Register on this issue; after all, their parent company owns the Barstow Desert-Dispatch!)

  • Scott||

    Matt, yes they are. They did an early pro-19 editorial over the summer, but I expect they'll do a formal endorsement soon.

  • ||

    So, call me crazy, but isn't there already a statute for driving while impaired? If not, and if Prop 19 were to pass, how hard would it be for the legislature to craft an impaired driving statute?

    Seems to me that defining "driving while high" is not a fundamental stumbling block here.

    Some can correct me if I'm wrong (that so rarely happens it's a treat), but I'm fairly certain that states arrested and convicted people of driving under theeinfluence before breathalyzers.

  • C-Dog||

    It's been illegal to drive under the influence for a few generations now and is still on the books. The recent 0.08% BAC shit is relatively new and is actually a separate offense, so you are correct.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Typically, a breathalyzer establishes a "per se" driving-while-impaired offense, i.e., if the machine says you're at 0.08%, you're impaired, regardless of whether you're actually capable of getting the car safely home. But in all the states that I know, you can be convicted of driving while impaired by alcohol even if you're under 0.08. If you're swerving all over the road, your 0.07 isn't going to save you.

    And we already have laws against driving while impared by vicodin, valium, percocet, codeine, and cocaine, all of which are legal and none of which have a roadside test or even a legally defined blood concentration that constitutes impairment.

    Then again, we could probably avoid much of this driving-while-stoned worry by pointing out that half a dozen bong hits don't impair your motor skills the way that three beers do, but no one's actually listening...

  • Brian Courts||

    thoreau and Stevo in the same thread?? Was there some kind of warping of the space-time continuum that sent us back to 2005? What's next? Comments from joe and Hakluyt too?

  • Brian Courts||

    Well damn, my question was answered before I could ask it -- TWC too!

  • ||

    thoreau and Stevo in the same thread??

    Not only that but The Wine Commonsewer.
    Their secret shadow blog must have crashed or something.

  • juris imprudent||

    That's what the evil weed does - it warps time and space, as jazz musicians knew long before astro-physicists. It also makes white women susceptible to the advances of males with darker skin.

  • white woman||

    Guess what - we are already highly susceptible to those.

  • Pegleg Mo||

    And Ruthless too. I'm still waiting for the dj of raleigh to return.

  • ||

    And now, since I double posted and used the threading, I shall go cast meself off the plank and into the briney sea, where I'll meet Davey Jones.

    Look up his sister Shirley. She was quite the looker the last time I visited Atlantis.

  • ||

    One thing I wish prop 19 contained is something like this: "it shall be a misdemeanor for any California official to aid or abet, in any manner, any law enforcement official or agency in the arrest or prosecution of any California resident for exercising his rights under prop 19. The punishment for the first offense shall be not less than 30 days in jail, $10,000 fine, and dismissal from employment."

    I am convinced that if this proposition passes, the local jack-booted thugs will stand right behind the feds as doors are kicked in, dogs (and grandmas) murdered, and children terrified. The punishment for state/local cops for narcing to the feds ought to be severe.

  • ||

    If Prop 19 passes, the Americans no longer take care of their children like they are gold, the most important resource to be protected from harm. The Americans only care about their self-centered selves. The American children are ignored, neglected and not protected from harm. If you destroy your children today, America will soon be destroyed in the future.

  • ||

    Avast! Retards off th' starboard beam! Man th' jib! Ready th' cannon!

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I award ye four-and-twenty Intarrrnets for this comment.

  • Spoonman.||

    +1

  • ||

    This pot user coupled with alcohol thought the oven was the baby crib.

    Search Google for the following:
    "Larry Long was at home in such a state of intoxication that ‘when he was about to take his baby to sleep he put his son in the oven. Although fortunately he did not think of booting up and also left the door ajar’. The fact was described by authorities as that “Larry had been smoking marijuana in the restaurant where he works as a cook. After arriving home, shared a bottle of whiskey with his wife, Brady Hatton. She went to bed earlier, while the father finished the bottle."

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    Should not drink around baby. Retarded. Abolish alcohol so retards cannot cook baby.

  • ||

    Arrr! Anecdotal non-sequiturs ahoy, maties!

  • ||

    We need laws requiring baby proof ovens. Arg.

  • cynical||

    Some people prefer to cook their babies by leaving them in cars. I say ban cars, but no one listens.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    You can't let individual human beings, especially adults, just smoke stuff they can grow. That is crazy. No way. It is crazy. No way, and stuff. Must control other human beings. Must not think for self.

  • ||

    Shorter lefty objection to Prop. 19 -

    It doesn't give the state enough power.

  • JB||

    Long past time to start burning newspapers.

    Reason should sponsor a Chronicle burning in SF.

  • ||

    What have YOU been using in your fireplace all these years? Wrapping fish and starting a fire, the only two valid purposes of Newsprint.

  • hee||

    You forgot cleaning glass and wrapping breakables.

  • ||

    We-don't-like-the-Drug-War-either-but:

    The prevailin' winds o' the scurvy scum be that 'tis better to be throwin' away tarnished pieces of 8 'cause they arrrrrren't shiny new doubloons.

  • ||

    From a non-pot-smoking perspective, these editorials seem perfectly reasonable to me. I'd like to see a reasonable argument as to how prop 19 is going to be advantageous to the quality of life of the majority of non-pot smokers. Pot users can plant smelly pot gardens next door to us, grow a lot more than one ounce (how does that work?)--consider the potential for robberies-- go to work stoned, drive around stoned, put pot ads in newspapers to be read by our kids, sell pot at the local grocery store. Oh yeah, we might have some taxes, which would go to the counties to regulate Prop 19. I see a lot of unspecific and contradictory provisions. It's really a crap shoot as to how it will pan out, and if you were honest you would admit as much. Pot is already virtually legal as "medical" marijuana, so why do we need to rush to embrace a terribly written prop?

  • ||

    Pot users can plant smelly pot gardens next door to us...

    Really? The garden itself smells bad?

    go to work stoned, drive around stoned...

    OK, you are a troll, I get it. Or maybe just stupid, or too lazy to actually read the proposition.

  • ||

    So I assume that you're also in favor of banning smoking and alcohol, from the same arguments.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Why would people steal something that is available for a few bucks down the road? That makes about much sense as to say your neighbors house might get broken into because he has rum (arrr) inside. Pot is only worth so much money now because it has to be sold on a black market.

    There are laws about driving while intoxicated under any substance. Marijuana would be treated no different. If someone comes to work high, they could be fired as easily as if they came to work drunk.

    Children already see ads for cigerettes and alcohol everywhere, and even more ads for prescription drugs. Why would seeing ads for marijuana be so much worse? The same with it being allowed in grocery stores.

  • Leroy||

    consider the potential for robberies

    If it is legalized, no one will need to steal it. You can just grow your own, so there is no more potential for your pot garden to get robbed than your tomato garden.

    go to work stoned, drive around stoned

    This has been covered in the comments above. Please direct your attention there.

    put pot ads in newspapers to be read by our kids, sell pot at the local grocery store

    If you do not like your children being exposed to certain things, be a good parent and keep your child away. Do not try to push your morality on the rest of society.

    If this last point is too nuanced for you to grasp, do you want your young children seeing playboy in the grocery store? What about cigarettes? How about all the advertisements for alcohol on TV? You don't want your child to dabble in these things at a young age, so you keep them away until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves.

  • ||

    You can just grow your own, so there is no more potential for your pot garden to get robbed than your tomato garden.

    Speaking as one who once lived in a house that had an orchard in the yard, I will mention that theft of produce by four-legged and winged interlopers is a major problem.

    -jcr

  • ||

    as to how prop 19 is going to be advantageous to the quality of life of the majority of non-pot smokers

    What if it doesn't affect the nonsmokers much at all? Is that good enough?

    so there is no more potential for your pot garden to get robbed than your tomato garden.

    I worry about passerby poaching veggies from my front yard, till I realized I live in an area where the only veggies people eat are tomato sauce and fried zuchinni. As long as I don't breed a tomato that grows as a sauce or a zuchinni that fries itself, it should be cool.

  • db the Bloody||

    thoreau and Stevo in the same thread?? Was there some kind of warping of the space-time continuum that sent us back to 2005? What's next? Comments from joe and Hakluyt too?

    ARRR! The element of surrprise doth strike fear in the bones of the lubbers! Pillage and plunder! Cap'n Ellie will rule this town by nightfall, by Davey Jones!

  • ||

    "so why do we need to rush to embrace a terribly written prop?"

    What is so terrible about the writing of the proposition?

  • thoreau||

    DoctARRRRGH T: You forgot to talk like a pirate. We'll let it slide this time, Matey, but if if happens again, I'll have to wake the parrot.

    The first rule of taking back Hit and Run is DON'T THREAD YOUR GODDAMN COMMENTS!!!!

  • Cap'n D.A. Dreadnaught Ridgely||

    Arrrrrrrgh! And here I be thinkin' the first rule of takin' back Hit & Run was that there is no Hit & Run!

    Wait a minute. Wrong meme. Never mind.

  • ||

    Arrrrr! Think of the wee ones.These pro drug scurvies should all be keelhauled.

  • thoreau||

    OMG! Juanita returns on the exact same day as some of the snarkiest, most parody-savvy commenters.

    Surely a coincidence!

    Anyway, I have a bunch of drug-related blog posts up at Unqualified Offerings.

  • ||

    OMG! Juanita returns on the exact same day as some of the snarkiest, most parody-savvy commenters.

    I am beginning to suspect funny business is afoot.

  • ||

    Arrr, dasn't ye be meaning t' say Shenanigans?

  • ||

    Arrrrr! Think of the wee ones.These pro drug scurvies should all be keelhauled.

    Arrrgh, the lovely wench from the Spanish Main, Juanita graces us with her presence.

    The mind of the believer is the belief that you believe the fairy tales of old
    When the merchandise of the lost and nearly rotten are merely forgotten gold
    As the pages in life we change the day to the date where we set sail
    Waiting for the tide to turn for the fortune to turn when the seas wail
    The mighty you may be, but what you do you believe you are free
    Aye, the world is round when the mind is ever wondering for me
    Sail these seas to the freedom that becomes you as an outcast
    The salt of the sea to the lasting embrace of the lassie boat may last
    You are still a pirate of the world to be known as such as you are
    The world is free for you and me, just wish about the nearest star
  • Sinbad||

    Too fancy to be a chantey.

    Hop up on teh board now.

  • Apostate Jew||

    Allah, G-d, etc. be praised! My prayers have been answered by the return of former posters (even though many seem to have turned into parody pirates.) G-d is indeed great.

  • Suki||

    I was going to read all that but I am watching PBS.

  • David E. Gallaher||

    Supposing tomorrow were Troll Day, how would they talk? .... Tune in tomorrow.
    (Not speaking to real trolls. I guess you know already?)

    Ruthless, the pirate talk challenged.

  • ||

    OK that dude is making pretty good sense now!

    www.online-privacy.eu.tc

  • alan||

    Newspaper: San Francisco Chronicle
    Sophomoric pot joke: n/a

    Is that because it is the SanFranChron you would have had to include the entire column?

  • ||

    Clothes should be made from hemp..
    Medicines should be made from hemp.
    All plastics should be made from hemp.
    Fuel should be made from hemp.

    Why is it illegal?

    When our founders grew it and Henry Ford made the model t out of it and fueled it?Its easy to grow and doesnt need pesticides.So why was it made illegal?

    William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

    In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business.

    Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

    Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go.

  • ||

    This is an examole of why nobody wants to discuss adult things with you.

    Historical ignorance, a sampling of conspiracy paranoia and unbridled idiocy all rolled into one fucking retarded comment.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    All he really does is c&p from other sources. Oh, I'm sure there are a few things he's got memorized by now, but Google just about anything FIAP posts and you'll find it almost verbatim somewhere else.

  • ||

    Sorry FACT....and Im sure oil companies or Insurance companies dont get together to fix prices either right?

    You know how many other countries grow hemp?

    Why dont we genius?

  • ||

    Because 'tis illegal. Avast, nay one here thinks hemp ortin' ta be illegal, but that dasn't mean we be havin' t' buy into yer idiotic conspiracy theories copied from th' internet.

  • ||

    Why...never askd yourself huh.Why is that?

  • ||

    Arrr, canna this scurvy idiot here read more than one sentence? I repeat myself: nay one here wants hemp t' be illegal.

  • Nipplemancer||

    saying fact in all caps does not make your conspiracy theory hold true. Don't you have tinfoil hats to construct?

  • ||

    And we went into Iraq for WMDs right?

  • ||

    Im sure oil companies or Insurance companies dont get together to fix prices either right?

    I'm sure that oil companies wish they could do that, but even the most casual glance at the charts over the last decade or so will prove that they can't.

    As for insurance, that's a government problem. Deregulate it if you want competition.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Arrrr, ye be quite a gullible parrot!

    Would ye like t' come up an' sit on me shoulder?

  • ||

    William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

    I have never understood this...

    Why is cutting down forests to grow hemp better for the environment then cutting down forests to grow forests?

  • Eco Terrorist||

    Because you can't spike hemp plants?

  • ||

    1.you dont have to cut down forests to grow hemp.
    2.It grows fast like a weed.

  • David E. Gallaher||

    Hello my honey. Hello my ragtime gal frog!
    Stranger things have happened. Keep a stiff upper lip. Your mates are plotting a plan to help you hop from that pot. Croak! Keep croaking!

  • ||

    Henry Ford grew industrial hemp on his estate after 1937, possibly to prove the cheapness of methanol production at Iron Mountain. He made plastic cars (the so-called Hemp Car) with wheat straw, hemp and sisal. (Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1941, "Pinch Hitters for Defense.") Filtered hemp oil can be used directly to power diesel engines. In 1892, Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine, which he intended to fuel "by a variety of fuels, especially vegetable and seed oils, which earlier were used for oil lamps, i.e. The Argand lamp."

    I can dream....this is a hot tub right?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I'm sure hemp is an awesome product, but everything I have ever found about this Hearst timber/hemp thing, and the Anslinger connection, etc., is sourced to other websites of dubious reliability.

    I don't doubt that it could be true, but I've never seen this story in any scholarly source.

  • Robert||

    Darn, couldn't they have written the thing in some way other than one big "notwithstanding" provision? It basically says, "Notwithstanding anything else in the law, you're permitted to do this." Couldn't it instead have inserted and/or deleted appropriate language in the consolidated statutes? I hate these "notwithstanding" things that make you read or at least search the entire code, end to end, to make sure there's nothing that supersedes what you're interested in. And then you have to look at dates in case two nothwistandings contradict each other, to see which is more recent and therefore overrides the other. Grrrrr.

  • ||

    Arrrrr.

  • Robert||

    Does "arrrrr" contradict "grrrrr", or agrrrrreeee with it? Because I really did, mean "grrrrr".

  • ||

    Arrrr, I be merely correctin' you, ya landlubber.

  • Robert||

    I'm not writing like a grizzled sailor. I meant "grrrr" as in angerrrrr or grrrrowl. But not as in grrrrl.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Again, this is only applies to the states where I'm licensed to practice, but we already have laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated by any drug, legal or illegal. So your "notwithstanding" provision would work just fine. Weed is legal, but if you're so stoned that you think a road sign is a mostly forgettable album cover, you still could be convicted of driving while impaired.

  • ||

    Arrr, I`d like all ye sea dogs an' land lubbers t' meet me new parrot, Frog in a Pot.

    Dasn't mind his squawkin', he`s harmless.

  • ||

    I've read the comments sections of all the papers Matt has mentioned that have them. I was surprised to what degree the comments were pro Prop 19. Like 90%+ in favor. I hope that means something.
    Oh yeah, ARrrrrrggggg!!!!!

  • Pegleg Mo||

    While there's little surprising that the CA papers support the status quo, I have to say I'm very disappointed that they're unanimously opposed to Prop 19.

  • ||

    They be progressive scribblers all Matey.

  • ||

    Arrr, ye still be waving yer false colors, matey!

  • thomas sabo||

    what

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    "The result is a flourishing underground economy that allows marijuana to escape taxation and regulation while bestowing profits on criminal enterprises."

    Raise your hand if you've been harmed by "unregulated" weed.

  • ||

    Lets ask Mexico...

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    > Hey Mexico! Hombre! Y'all been harmed by unregulated marijuana?

    > No Mr. Pete. We harmed by... how you say... War on Drugs.

  • ||

    That BE regulated marijuana, ye imbecile. Highly regulated marijuana, as in illegal. If marijuana be nay regulated, thar would be nay black market fer 't. 't would be an above poop deck market wi' nay need fer violence. God ye be a scurvy idiot. Thanks fer provin' me point.

  • ||

    Arrr, blast these damn server bilge-rats. These threaded comments aught t' swim with Davy Jones.

  • ||

    Yes the war on drugs is a joke..but just legalizing solves the problems of cartels?And crime?Dont think so.

    Legalize.. regulate and tax...just like alcohol and cigarettes.Wanna grow palnts for personal use in your yard no problem.Wanna sell ?...profit?..pay yur taxes.

  • ||

    Arrr, and o' course this be goin' t' cause a black market t' be created that skips th' taxes an' regulations. Th' only way t' be havin' nay black market be t' be havin' a free market, since thar be nay incentive t' create a black market when th' market be always free.

    Really this be quite a simple fact o' economics: regulation creates an incentive fer black markets. Why do ye nay understand this?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I'm not particularly enthused that the eventual legalization of marijuana will doubtless be accompanied by the hiring of government drones to ensure that commercial sales of marijuana conform to reams of new regulations regarding cannabinoid concentrations and ratios, packaging, labeling, testing, etc.

    Alas, pointing out that I buy my weed from a heavily-pierced slut who I only know as Red Jenn, and yet have never been maimed by the product nor received schwag when I paid for KB will not convince the statists that we don't need to hire bureaucrats to protect me when I want to blaze.

  • ||

    Arrrr, I be agreein' with ye, matey.

    Regulation, which be includin' illegalization, be th' only thin' that causes black markets.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    This is just incoherent, and I don't mean "incoherent" in the typical internet sense, where it means "your retarted." I mean it in the actual, dictionary-definition sense: "without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling"

    Legalizing marijuana would go a long way to solving cartel violence and related crime. The producers of alcohol have names like "Miller Brewing Company" and don't hold up Coors delivery drivers at gunpoint. The producers of tobacco have names like "Altria" and don't kidnap and rape your sister.

  • ||

    Im sure the history of legalization of gambling in Las Vegas would interest you?

  • ||

    Arrr, gamblin' be legal in Vegas, but nay unregulated. So o' course there be violence when picaroons be tryin' t' game the regulated system.

  • ||

    Ron Paul and Barney Frank Introduce Hemp Farming Legislation – HR 1866

    “Under the current national drug control policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it can’t be grown by American farmers,” says Steenstra. “The DEA has taken the Controlled Substances Act’s antiquated definition of marijuana out of context and used it as an excuse to ban industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 will return us to more rational times when the government regulated marijuana, but allowed farmers to continue raising industrial hemp just as they always had.”

    Why is that..ever ask yourself?

  • ||

    Alcohol is also highly regulated if its for distribution and sale.You can make your own beer for personal use..which is mighty fun and tasty.I like regulation.I like to know coors and miiler dont have dead rats in the vats for extra flavor.Of course who knows since weve had the anti- regulation crowd in charge for over 30 years now.Notice how mant more people are dying and sickened by avoidable poisoning from lack of regulators and inspections?

  • ||

    Arrrr, them grog makers be regulatin' themselves, ya powder monkey.

  • Dread Pirate Naga||

    Frog in pot ye fool! Ye be warned nay t' drink seawater. Now ye`re caught up in yer delusions! Sea dogs an' land lubbers knows th' main ingredient o' any Miller product be dead rats. Why ye can taste them wi' ever' sip.

    Last post from central time, bitches!

  • Ayn_Randian||

    Let the shenanigans commence! My days of anonymity are over.

  • ||

    Ayn Rand, sociopath

    The "only virtue" is "selfishness."

    She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces.

    Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented

    "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

    She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

    A sociopath is a person who has no moral compass, no power of empathy to feel with or for others. Moral right and wrong are simply categories they don't access and probably can't.

    Ayn Rand wrote several books that are bedside reading for some powerful men in Washington. Alan Greenspan sat at her feet and absorbed her philosophy and Clarence Thomas loves her work so much he requires his clerks to read it.
    Ayn Rand modeled her superhero, John Galt in Atlas Shrugged on a serial killer of the day, Edward Hickman. Another hero, Howard Roark (in The Fountainhead) is described thus:

    "He was born without the ability to consider others."

    Know who else is an Ayn Randian?
    Allen Greenspan.That worked out well huh?

  • Ayn_Randian||

    I like regulation.I like to know coors and miiler dont have dead rats in the vats for extra flavor.

    I think it's adorable that It thinks that Daddy Government can tuck It in at night and protect it from monsters, both real and imaginary.

  • ||

    Well my dead cat might have appreciated if we had regulated the shit coming in from china.Just sayin.Oh and i like that there is someone checking my water quality everyday.I do sleep better.

  • juris imprudent||

    Maybe if you stop swinging it at every one you think is a conservative your cat could rest in peace.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Holy shit, Randian! You murdered his cat?

  • ||

    A_R: if you did, I owe you a beer. Fucking cats.

  • Ayn_Randian||

    Holy shit, Randian! You murdered his cat?

    It looked at me funny.

    As for the William Hickman stuff, it really is all a red herring - Ayn Rand said plenty of crazy stuff in her life, but the essence of her writings and teachings are what bother most, and William Hickman is a just a "guilt by association" attempt to invalidate the writer entirely, which is neither logical nor honest.

  • ¢||

    just a "guilt by association" attempt to invalidate the writer

    Hey now. It's not just that.

    It's also a way to learn that Johann (seriously?) Hari hasn't read Nietzsche. And neither has anyone at Slate who's supposed to keep the gate between his lame feints at literacy and our unsuspecting eyes.

    That's two more things.

  • Hugh Akston||

    A_R murdering his cat, combined with his obvious acceptance of collective guilt, would go a long way toward explaining fiap's antipathy toward libertarians.

    I suppose we should blame you, A_R, but who would have guessed that he would have actually taken time away from writing fan letters to IRS agents to come here and troll us.

  • ||

    Anyone can see that there's a such thing as 'too much' government, but government 'getting out of the way' is how we ended up here. it's also how it happened in the Great Depression.

    Reference materials - http://www.hyperhistory.com/on.....ssion.html

    There's far too much fear of the dreaded "Regulations" (eeek!) -

    Regulations are laws.. nothing more.

    Laws standardize, remove anomalies, Increase stability. They also assist in removing criminal activity. Although some criminal activity can produce rather dramatic economic effects in the short term, in the long term it undermines.

    The simplest of "Regulation" might be saying: we can't kill each other. There's the birth of Government.

    Then these laws start governing smaller holes in the structure, until eventually it's regulating derivatives or what have you.

    Laws are not the enemy, bad laws are, including those which are superfluous, unnecessary and over bearing.

    But to simply say 'get government out of the way' frankly, that's just silly. There wouldn't even BE a market without some regulation, some guidelines.

    What the private sector does best, when PROPER government gets out of the way, is suck the life out of the working class (demand)- by nature of man's innate greed. Soon wealth ends up in fewer and fewer hands... and fewer companies.

    The natural course of a free market is eventual monopoly, diminished demand.. and collapse from inefficiency and fraud.

    So... I disagree.

  • cynical||

    "Regulations are laws.. nothing more."

    Yes, laws also suck, mostly.

  • ||

    Arrr, a regulation be any law that prevents a sea dog from doin' what he has th' right t' do in th' first place.

  • Ayn_Randian||

    It's also a way to learn that Johann (seriously?) Hari hasn't read Nietzsche.

    Or Rand, for that matter.

  • ||

    She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice"

    Your heroin.....its a religion of selfishness.

  • ||

    a religion of selfishness.

    There is nothing more selfish than seeking the power to order others to do your bidding, so FUCK YOU.

    -jcr

  • cynical||

    Perhaps. Although, in the case you're talking about, it's a religion of reciprocity -- that is, fuck people who want to take without giving in return, regardless of their rationale.

  • ||

    Arrr, ye be exxageratin' her Nietzschean qualities while ignorin' her more libertarian political views.

  • Ayn_Randian||

    FIAP - you could try having an original thought instead of just copying and pasting from that awfully-written and poorly-researched Slate article from Hari.

  • Richard Nous||

    Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe pot can't be legalized except for medical purposes because of a UN treaty from 1961, also, it would take the feds to legalize pot for medical use, not the states.

  • hee||

    Richard, where have you been?

  • ||

    if you are thinking straight you would realize that #1where do the homeless get their weed? not to mention the money to but it in the store? #2Are you really so naive to think that everyone is so happy to pay their taxes? there are so many holes in this prop that no lawyer would want to touch it.

  • دردشة||

    thanks

  • thiagodaluz7@gmail.com||

    Well these folks are in more dire need of attention than the sewer repair in Colorado Springs. Though I imagine things have improved somewhat since then? Maybe? A little?

  • thiagodaluz7@gmail.com||

    Thanks for sharing this. I haven't been able to get the Bee in a while, so it's nice to stay updated. Thiago | http://www.wirtzrentals.com/

  • jstrong196||

    I don't really know about this kind of stuff, but after reading this it makes me want to learn more. Thanks for sharing!

    Jason | http://www.obsinc.net/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement