Gingrich, the Historian, Says Washington and Jefferson Would Have Violently Suppressed Their Own Crops

This morning Newt Gingrich, the historian, insisted that renowned hemp growers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have violently suppressed their own crop:

Dude in Audience: Would Jefferson or George Washington have been arrested for growing marijuana?

Gingrich: I think Jefferson or George Washington would have strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques for dealing with it would have been rather more violent than the current government.

Admittedly, the hypothetical scenario is a little hard to understand. Would Jefferson and Washington have been arrested for growing marijuana if doing so had been a federal crime in the 18th century? Probably they would not have been growing it in the first place. More to the point, it never would have occurred to anyone at the time that the newly formed federal government had the authority to proscribe a plant. And judging from his comments in Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson would not have been sympathetic to such a policy, whether at the federal or state level:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others....Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.

Yet somehow Gingrich—who finished a distant fourth in Iowa last night, eight points behind that crazy crank Ron Paul—knows that if Jefferson and Washington were alive today they would be just as mindlessly bloodthirsty as he is in trying to stop people from consuming the same plant he smoked with impunity when he was in graduate school. Also note Gingrich's implicit complaint that the Obama administration is not violent enough in cracking down on marijuana. Raids on medical marijuana dispensaries are more frequent under Obama than they were under Bush, and these are not peaceful events. If Gingrich were in charge, I guess, dispensary operators would be lined up against a wall and shot.

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.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's fun watching Newt come apart.

  • ||

    Yes indeed. The more spectacularly he flames out, the better.

  • ||

    Yeah, he is pretty pathetic now.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The assholes that get gored is one of the few silver lining to this awful campaign.

  • anon||

    Well, at least we all get to see that the GOP will reliably return to thumping bibles at every opportunity.

  • ||

    Have you ever seen Santorum come apart?

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'm afraid that one is wound way, way too tight for that. Too bad...he spooks me.

  • Teenage Girl||

    Eewww!!

  • ||

    Santorum is a usually a liquid. So, I can't picture it coming apart.

  • ||

    depends on if it's Newtonian or not.

  • The Mossy Spaniard||

    He-HEY!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Huh. So what they say is true. Marijuana does cause violence.

  • joe||

    I didn't know that hemp was marijuana.

  • Paul||

    It ain't.

  • ||

    "It ain't".

    It ain't, and to my knowledge, while both grew hemp commercially... which is great for fabrics and fibers... neither grew pot on any scale... which isn't (though Jefferson was said to have smoked it).

  • Brett||

    During the Founding fathers time hemp referred to all cannabis crops. That includes varieties grown for fiber and varieties grown as a drug for medicinal and recreational use.

    "Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda,
    smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  • ||

    I believe they'd have said, "What the Fuck buſiness is that of Mine?"

    The idea that they'd use violent government action to stop people from smoking something is insane and totally ahistorical.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Unless you didn't pay your taxes on it. (e.g. The Whiskey Rebellion.)

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nice use of Ye Olde English characters, Pro.

  • ||

    Right. We need the dues.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What the Fuck buſiness is that of Mine?"

    Shit, put up a warning sign or something before you do that. I nearly snarfed half a cup of coffee all over my keyboard when I read that.

  • Juice||

    http://www.monticello.org/site.....-quotation

    Status: This statement has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It appears to be of extremely recent vintage, and does not appear in any secondary print sources available online.

  • jacob||

    Newt is a fucking tool. I'd love to hear him justify his position on eminent domain.

  • Paul||

    Frankly, I enjoy listening to anyone justify a pro-eminent domain position.

    And of course, by "pro-eminent domain" I mean the newfangled "Public Purpose" deviation from "Public Use".

  • robc||

    Even the oldfangled version cant be supported. Its based on economic ignorance.

  • Paul||

    Dude in Audience: Would Jefferson or George Washington have been arrested for growing marijuana?

    I'm confused by this whole line of discussion. Marijuana wasn't illegal during Jefferson's time.

    So the answer is self evident: No

    And Gingrich is an i-d-i-d-o-th.

  • ||

    Washington and Jefferson probably would have had Gingrich committed for being such a big-government lunatic.

  • Paul||

    Gingrich would have been a Royalist, ever loyal to the crown.

  • Christina||

    ^^This^^

  • ||

    Tarred and Feathered.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But it's Ron Paul who is disconnected from reality. Uh huh, right.

  • juris imprudent||

    Damn, I was going to say "which one is the crazy uncle".

  • ||

    Conventional wisdom: making assholes sure they're absolutely right about something...forever.

  • ||

    I'm spelling it potatoe from now on.

  • ||

    Ironic that french fries were once illegal in France.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Does that mean we can ban mayonnaise in the States?

  • ||

    Mmm. French Fries with mayonnaise (and mustard).

  • Krazy Krank Kristen||

    That's just wrong, dude. No mayo on freedom fries, EVAR.

  • db||

    You are so wrong. Mayo is the best ingredient for fries, followed closely by Arby's Horsey Sauce.

  • SIV||

    Thats just sick. The Horsey sauce I mean. Mayo is excellent on French fries and fried chicken (and tomato aspic).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Y'all eat some nasty shit.

    Mayo goes on nothing. Ever. Mayo is the pus from a boil on Satan's taint.

  • Matrix||

    No mayo on anything ever!

  • The Mossy Spaniard||

    I've said it here before, but if it ain't Duke's, it ain't mayonnaise. Hellman's, JFG, Kraft, etc. are merely "egg-based spreads".

  • rather||

    "Mmm. French Fries with mayonnaise"
    yes
     

  • El Commentariosa||

    garlic mayo ftw

  • ||

    Pish. Baconnaise FTW!

  • Paul||

    The subversive Canadianists in the U.S. Government would never allow it.

  • Sevo||

    You're not fooling anyone; you already do.

  • ||

    You're thinking of negroe.

  • ||

    Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

    What the fuck does that even mean?

    Was the state of souls in the late 1700s/early 1800s so very bad?

    Was it common knowledge that souls were in bad shape?

    Does "keeping" have a meaning that i am missing?

  • ||

    He may have been in France with Franklin when he wrote it.

  • LilDebbie||

    i'll forgive you your ignorance as you are no doubt a godless heathen, but back in the day your religion was determined by that of the crown's. to worship another was considered a form of treason. the thirteen colonies, being largely inhabited by english heretics, were particularly sensitive about this particular form of tyranny. hence its usefulness as a rhetorical device.

  • Matrix||

    when I was in secular college and taking a religious history class, the professor proclaimed his love for state sanctioned religion and that all citizens should be directed in how to worship and believe. And the guy claimed to be non-religious. I mean... seriously?! Statists never cease to amaze me.

  • anon||

    The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all _acts of parliament_ which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly.

  • The Ron Paul Survival Report||

    There are many things that were legal on Jefferson and Washington's plantations that would make our lives a lot simpler if they were still legal today.

  • ||

    So President Paul would want to repeal the 13th amendment?

  • Hugh Akston||

    That would be at the top of his agenda after election, right after repealing the Civil Rights Act and Newton's Second Law of Motion.

  • jacob||

    Is that inertia or f=ma?

  • ||

    1. inertia
    2. F=ma
    3. equal and opposite reaction

  • ||

    (1) is actually a special case of (2)

  • ||

    So you claim.

    V=IR.

  • ||

    PV = nRT

  • db||

    P = (RT / (Vm - b)) - (aα)/(Vm*(Vm+b))

  • ||

    ^van der Waals for the WIN!^

  • ||

    And I take pride in the fact that that statement will never, ever be uttered again on the interwebs. Or anywhere else for that matter.

  • db||

    Redlich-Kwong-Soave.

  • ||

    Warty + Whiskey = Good Times.

  • ||

    Warty - Whiskey = ø

  • ||

    Ergo, Warty = Whiskey??

  • ||

    @ Hugh A. Gotta be a clown on every thread.

    So Mr. Liar, prove what you said. You cheap shot artists puke up anti ron Paul jive but never back it up. This Rules For Radicals bilge from what Cass Sunstein calls easy to manipulate Homer Simpsons is getting rather old, boring & tiresome.

    If ya want to criticize DR. Paul, fine. But at least man up & prove your case & quit throwing out generalized crap that you never back up.

    In short, try being honest for a change.

    SamFox

  • OWS-VPS||

    It is remarkable how efforts to reduce the government deficit/debt are often portrayed as a generational issue, while efforts to reduce global warming are almost never framed in this way. This contrast is striking because the issues involved in reducing the deficit or debt have little direct relevance to distribution between generations, whereas global warming is almost entirely a question of distribution between generations.

    Seeing the debt as an issue between generations is wrong in almost every dimension. The idea that future generations will somehow be stuck with some huge tab in the form of the national debt suffers from the simple logical problem that we are all going to die. At some point, everyone who owns the debt being issued today, or over the next two decades, will be dead. They will have to pass the ownership of the debt to someone else – in other words, their children or grandchildren. This means that the debt is not money that our children and grandchildren will be paying to someone else. It is money that they will be paying to themselves.

    There are certainly issues of intra-generational distribution. If Bill Gates's grandkids own all the debt, then there will be a serious issue of income inequality 50 or 60 years out – but that is not an intra-generational issue.

    Of course, some of this debt will be owned by foreigners. The interest and principle payments by our grandchildren will make the country as a whole poorer. However, the foreign ownership of US financial assets, including government debt, is determined by our trade deficit, not our budget deficit.

    Those who proclaim themselves concerned that our grandchildren will be stuck making huge payments to the Chinese or other foreigners should be focused on reducing the value of the dollar. A more competitively priced dollar will be the key to getting our trade deficit closer to balance and reducing the outflow of dollars each year that are used to buy up US financial assets.

    The main factor that will determine the economic wellbeing of our children and grandchildren will be the strength of the economy that we pass down to them. This will depend, in turn, on the quality of the capital and infrastructure we pass onto them, along with the level of education we give them, the state of technical knowledge we achieve and the state of the natural environment.

    If we cut the deficit by making spending cuts that affect our progress in these areas, we will be making our children worse-off, not better-off. Of course, leaving their parents unemployed for long periods of time will not improve our children's wellbeing either.

    If the deficit has little to with the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren, global warming has everything to do with it. We run the risk of handing them a planet without many of the fascinating features that we had the opportunity to enjoy (for example, coral reefs that are dying, plant and animal species that are becoming extinct, landscapes that are being transformed). Far more seriously, we face the likelihood of handing them a planet in which hundreds of millions of people risk death by starvation due to drought in central Africa, or through flooding in Bangladesh and other densely populated low-lying areas in Asia, as a result of human caused global warming.

    The guiding philosophy on this issue in the United States is pretty much that we can inflict whatever harm we want on people elsewhere in the world because we are powerful and they are not. This is certainly true today, but will it still be true 60 or 70 years from now? Do we expect that the United States will still be able to act unilaterally without regard to the consequences that our actions have on the rest of the world?

    Before anyone tries to answer this question, they should consider that the International Monetary Fund's projections show China's economy surpassing the US economy before the end of the next presidential term. And China is not the only country whose growth is substantially outpacing ours.

    The point is not that we should worry about an invasion from hostile powers, but instead, that we should not imagine that we will be able to inflict great harm on the rest of the world with impunity. In other words, our children and grandchildren may well be forced to pay a substantial price for the damage caused by our greenhouse gas emissions today.

    Those who want to worry about questions of generational equity might start to wrap their heads around combating global warming. Global warming threatens to do far more damage to the wellbeing of future generations than the social security and Medicare benefits going to baby-boomers, no matter how much the deficit hawks try to twist the numbers to claim otherwise.

  • ||

    If we promise to read this screed, will you promise not to post those stupid illustrations again?

  • Sudden||

    I wonder what the VPS stands for, but I dare not ask.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Virtual Public Spaces. This is the next phase of Occupy Wall St.--Occupy Virtual Public Spaces, such as blogs, YouTube videos, Facebook, newspaper websites, etc to get our message out.

  • Hugh Akston||

    IOW, trolling.

  • Sudden||

    He should totally occupy secondlife.

  • Krazy Krank Kristen||

    Yeah, basically. Totally unoriginal.

  • ||

    Your new handle reminds me of this.

    i dropped into
    a clam chowder the
    other evening
    for a warm bath and
    a bite to eat
    and i heard a couple of
    clams talking
    it seems that they
    are sore on the
    oyster family and
    have formed an
    organization to
    do away with them
    they call it the
    ku klux klam
    yours for the frequent stew
    archy

  • ||

    i tried . MEGO after the first two paragraphs

  • chris||

    define: MEGO in Google gets me nothing useful. Help me out here.

  • chris||

    Don't make me go to Urban Dictionary. Hate that site.

  • Apatheist||

    My Eyes Glaze Over. Speaking of UD, the word of the day yesterday was Santorum.

  • chris||

    Thanks for that. The squirrels flagged me for spam the first time I tried to post a thanks; not even a single link!

  • ||

    Include your thanks in a wall of text that's been copy and pasted here a million times before and it will get through.

  • ||

    or make reference to a product you want to sell, that usually works too.

  • LilDebbie||

    just a friendly reminder that some of us know the identities of certain marblecake confectioners and would appreciate it if you would stay the fuck away from the good doctor paul.

    kisses!

  • ||

    I hopez I hopez I hopez this is real.

  • yogi||

    Virtual Public Spaces? You only gave examples of virtual private spaces.

  • anon||

    Wow. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. And I just read this article.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Virtual Public Spaces. ... to get our message out."

    Why? It's pointless. If you really want what you want, ramp up to violence instead.

    You know you want to.

  • Sevo||

    "This is the next phase of Occupy Wall St"

    The next *phase*? That's great! I'll bet you got a million of 'em!
    Sorry, the next "phase" of occupy (x) is probably a footnote in Wiki,

  • ||

    OMG! Did you just admit that you all are trolling real life like it is a blog?

  • Amakudari||

    Oh.

    Well, that's pretty retarded. Ambitious movement you got there.

    Next.

  • Ska||

    Vapidly Pasted Screeds

  • anon||

    Vermin Piece of Shit?

  • Matrix||

    Very Pretentious Stooge

  • ||

    Vain Pretentious Santorum?

  • Xenocles||

    I love the way Reasonable makes it easy to deal with folks like him. It's like having my own riot squad.

  • robc||

    tl;dr

  • Bingo||

    Fuck off rather

  • Sevo||

    I actually got through several paragraphs and realized that it approached the level of a NYT column.
    Shame on me for wasting the time.

  • rsi||

    Its WI. Can't discuss anything. One note samba.

  • chris||

    I don't know, he did break character when I got him on the subject of skullguns.

  • anon||

    Fuck dude, get to the point. I'm not reading all that shit.

  • Wayne G||

    Didn't we make you cry last time?

  • JB||

    You know that the earth was warming and cooling long before humans ever set foot on it, right?

    So how much of the current warming (let's just say there is warming) is from humans and not from nature? Is it 5%, 25%, 56%, 96%?

    The science is very unsettled on that.

  • Matrix||

    You are stupid on a whole new level. Yes, weaken the dollar. Great thing to do, which wipes out personal savings and investments. Will lower real debt, but why punish people who were responsible to reward irresponsibility? Oh, I get it. Anyone who saves or invests and does not immediately relinquish every dime of excess income is somehow a bad, selfish person. We should all just let society bail us out in bad times, right? **** off, slaver!

  • Robert Enders||

    Do you know why China's economy will surpass ours? Because they don't give two shits about global warming.

  • ||

    Not only were Washington and Jefferson both Marijuana growers, The Forefathers in their Industrious wisdom made non growers pay a penalty tax, Newt while extremely ignorant of History and fact fits right in with the mentality of the typical Georgian white male.

  • Juice||

    hemp!

  • yogi||

    Would Jefferson or George Washington have been arrested for growing marijuana hemp?

    Who would have arrested them? The DEA (est. 1973)?

  • SIV||

    Harry Anslinger with the shiny new Marihuana Tax Act(est. 1937) he got from FDR and the New Deal Congress.

  • SIV||

    He'd need a time machine. And the law would need to be retroactive.

  • Not Sure||

    Did someone say a time masheen!?

  • Kevin Carson||

    If that reflects the quality of his thought as a "housing historian," no wonder things are so fucked up.

  • ||

    Doesn't it say everything you need to know about society in general that lizards and pond scum like Gingrich are not merely widely admired, but are considered the best of the best? What kind of people are we when evil, awful, fundamentally corrupt people like Gingrich populate the governing class?

  • Hugh Akston||

    America gets exactly the government it deserves.

  • Juice||

    Gullible and/or busy?

  • LilDebbie||

    good people who would not try to enslave our neighbors, even for such a righteous cause as giving newt a wedgie on national television.

  • Krazy Krank Kristen||

    I don't know a single person, even the most ardent party cultist, who thinks any politician is the "best of the best".

  • anon||

    Are you kidding? There's a whole country just north of South Korea.

  • ||

    Leave China outta this.

  • jacob||

    Not so sure Gingrich is widely admired. He pulled about 13% in Iowa. Even Ann Coulter, the prototypical Team Red cheerleader, can't stand the guy.

    But I agree with everything you said about him.

  • ||

    The Germans have a term called Zeitgeist. It means loosely "spirit of the times". The spirit of the times today is the spirit of the idiot. Idiots go to the top in nearly every major institution we have.

  • ||

    Idiotengeist. Or Zeitidioten.

  • ||

    Two excellent noms du comment.

  • El Commentariosa||

    Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude

  • JB||

    If you promote them away from real work, they do less damage.

  • ||

    You can thank whatever the hell you pray to that in a few weeks the only place you'll see this fool is on Fox News. I do however understand team reds fickle nature as they seek anything, great holy mother of god anything but Romney.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Please, Reason, just stop posting Newt/Santorum. Give some mercy to us. At this point, neither of those two assholes is going to get into the presidency. Posting the things they say is just sadomasochism.

  • Len||

    No one forced you to come here, unless it's your masochistic addiction to pain. If that's the case, then we can prescribe some of the "legal" drugs for you, which we have bribed..er, lobbied to make sure they;re available to you instead of that bad weed.

  • jacob||

    Santorum just won the Iowa Caucus and is the darling of Free REpublic.

    I am more than happy to hear bad shit about him.

    Newt? I agree with you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I doubt Santorum has the gravitas to take it much further. And who cares about Freetard Republic that is a has-been site.

  • ||

    Newt is a living breathing example of someone who knows just enough about nearly everything to be dangerous.

  • ||

    If he's an intellectual, then, by this standard, I'm a supergenius. Bow before me, peons.

  • yogi||

    I am not an intellectual either, not even close, but I do require that candidates for this honor have some capacities to challenge me at a drinking game.

    I could talk Newt into dancing in pumps with a pink mini-skirt before I had a buzz.

  • ||

    Let's hear it for Pro Lib...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIPr23xyoZg

  • ||

    That's Acme disparagement!

  • MJ||

    Intelligence is not really a prerequisite to be an intellectual.

  • ||

    Newt is a living breathing example of someone who knows says things confidently enough about nearly everything to be dangerous.

    FIFY

  • ||

    I was just thinking that this morning. I'd hate to have to argue something with him, because I think my doubt about certainty would be trumped by his certainty that he has no doubts.

  • ||

    gingrich proposed the death penalty for pot dealers in 1997.

    http://is.gd/7KFQgn

  • El Newto||

    I drink your milkshake.

  • Hugh||

    I have a suggestion. How about we all work to get Newt Gingrich elected?

    Think about it - after one year of this power-hungry statist in charge, the whole nation will be begging for a libertarian president.

  • anon||

    That's what I said about Obama. Man was I wrong.

  • JB||

    But after he runs the country into the ground, then it will be open season on Obamabots.

  • Abdul||

    Washington distilled whisky, but had no problem suppressing the whisky rebellion.

  • ||

    True. So I am guessing he would violently suppress you if you refused to pay taxes on your pot.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Word. The WR was about taxes, not whisky.

  • Apatheist||

    I think Jefferson or George Washington would have strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques for dealing with it would have been rather more violent than the current government.

    Would, would, would. Does he think marijuana didn't exist then? There's no reason to speculate Newt, we already know what they did because it already happened. Maybe he was talking about some steampunk novel he is writing.

  • Wayne G||

    With dirgibles?

  • Apatheist||

    Yes, lots of kinky sex on dirgibles.

  • anon||

    You misunderstand. This man is an historian. Your point is invalid.

  • James Madison||

    puff, puff...wow, man, look at all that interstate commerce!

    Just kidding, I don't see any interstate commerce. There ain't enough dope in the world to make anyone that stupid.

  • George Washington||

    Pass me that bong, James.

    Ahhhh...you know, what this country really needs is a really powerful executive with the power to lock up Americans without trial, write laws through administrative procedure, start foreign wars without Congress.

    Yes, we really need such an executive, so we can fuckin try him for treason!

  • anon||

    We really haven't had a treason trial in far too long.

  • Apatheist||

    "Behind every good man there is a woman, and that woman was Martha Washington, man, and everyday George would come home, she would have a big fat bowl waiting for him, man, when he come in the door, man, she was a hip, hip, hip lady, man."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH__GUg1EwY

  • chris||

    Hippies give pot a bad name.

  • ||

    Absolutely true. However, you must admit that flower children do reform and become corrupt politicians and wall street traders. Whereas, those who think marijuana legalization would create a society of hippy gangsters cannot ever be repaired.

  • El Commentariosa||

    There's a town in South Carolina called Townville? WTF? Did they run out of names?

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    They'll have to rename the whole state South West Virginia after tonight.

  • Almanian||

    It's right next to Fort Los East Saint Burg Heights Creek Hills Valley Rapidston.

  • El Commentariosa||

    it's actually west of Ninety Six and Due West

  • Yeppir||

    Ten mile from Gumlog.

  • Apatheist||

    Muahaha only five of us in the Bowl league picked WVU tonight. I may not be able to win overall (or come last) but this will be the game the most people got wrong. What was everybody thinking?

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    63-20 now. When does the mercy rule kick in?

  • PantsFan||

    Yeah!

  • Gojira||

    Wasn't that the name of the city in Powerpuff Girls?

  • Almanian||

    Whoa, Jim - "Powerpuff Girls"? Say it ain't so!!!

  • Gojira||

    Hey - that was a great show.

    Fun fact: my original dorm-mate in college transfered out and left me the dorm room to myself after our first semester because some supremely uninteresting teams were playing in the WS, and it was my TV and I turned on Cartoon Network instead. I believe Powerpuff and Samurai Jack were new that night

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The Professor drove a Studebaker Avanti. How cool is that?

  • Townville, PA||

    What am I, chopped liver?

  • Almanian Washington Jefferson||

    "I cannot tell a lie - THE POT WAS BEN FRANKLIN'S, MAN, AND I WAS SUBJECT TO A LOT OF PEER PRESSURE AND IT WAS ONLY ONCE AND HE'S A LOT OLDER THAN ME AND SAID IT WOULD BE OK AND IT'S HARD BEING WHITE, RICH AMD SHIT IN THE LATE 18TH CENTURY AND SHIT AND YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!

    LEAVE NEWT ALOOOOOOOOONE!!!"

  • Frontier President||

    Take the Reds, man, take the Reds!

  • Ben Franklin||

    Those who would buy a bag of inferior dope for the same price as the good stuff, deserves neither liberty nor money.

    A penny saved is a penny earned, and when you've saved up enough you can buy some more pot.

    Early to bed, early to rise, smoke marijuana until your brain fries.

  • Freewheelin' Franklin Freak||

    Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.

  • Wayne G||

    I thought AMC showed quality movies.
    Yet tonight it's Eraser.

  • Wayne and Garth||

    We used to tool around in an AMC!

  • PantsFan||

    25% of New Hampshire's population is French Canadian. Who will they support?

  • ||

    The habs, probably.

  • Chupacabra||

    Only if they hire a french speaking coach.

  • rsi||

    He's a spammer. OWS VPS.

    leftist will try to occupy our site.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....or-OWS-VPS They can't allow any disagreement,

    they'll loose.

    If you've ever been to a univeristy, you know they can't tolerate disent.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuckin' KosKids. Do they work?

  • Mr. FIFY||

  • Lewis H||

    I want to see Newt catch footballs on the beach.
    http://cdn.eurweb.com/wp-conte.....2-wide.jpg

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wonder if the SS goons considered shooting the sand, after it jumped up and hit His Nibs like that...

  • Mr. Econotarian||

    Newt is right in a way - see the Whiskey Rebellion, where Washington used violence to collect taxes on whiskey.

  • ||

    As mentioned upthread, that was about taxes not whiskey.

  • Mike||

    Fuck calling RP a crazy crank. If he's elected the drug war ends. Can't say that about any other candidate. I bet you voted for Obama. Look how that going.

  • Amakudari||

    Back home for Christmas, my best friend's dad, a big local Republican booster, reminded me that the rest of the Republicans couldn't stand Gingrich because he was "too intellectual for them."

  • ||

    That says a lot about the "rest of the republicans".

  • دردشة العراق||

    Thank you

  • ||

    Cypress Hill should rededicate their old hit "Insane in the Brain" to Newt Gingrich, because that's what he is.

  • jacob||

    Could you imagine a video of Newt bouncing up and down to that song?

    I miss Cypress Hill.

  • ||

    It's always funny to hear him talk tough. Grrr, argghh. Shit, he looks like the Pillsbury Doughboy's ugly-ass uncle.

  • ||

    Escuse me "renowned hemp growers?" A bit of a stretch. Both Presdients were part-time farmers who grew some hemp, but were far from renowned for it.
    And they grew Cannabis sativa, which is a fast-growing fibrous plant, not Cannabis indica, the one with the THC we all know and love.

  • db||

    Citation required when citing species grown. On both sides of the Argument.

  • GT||

    In any civilised country, nutbars like Gingrich would be too afraid of being publicly humiliated to even TRY to pretend call themselves 'intellectual'.

    Then again, in any civilised country, nobody could run for public office if they belonged to a polygamous cult whose core doctrine was revealed to some dickhead who stuck his head in a magic hat.

    The US is much like post-Revolutionary France: long on sloganeering, but started undermining its own stated raison d'être less than a decade after its establishment.

    Still, the US gave us Professor H.G. Frankfurt, whose epic tome "On Bullshit" enables one to form very precise expectations of the veracity of any statement uttered by a person who seeks to live their lives at taxpayers' expense.

    (The US also gave us Joe Rogan and Duncan Trussell - so if you stop killing brown babies tomorrow, and genuinely repent and make amends, all is forgiven). Fnord.

  • Douglas Willinger||

    http://freedomofmedicineanddie.....-diet.html

    Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

  • ||

    I think Gingrich's comment is correct, frankly.

    Upthread, people point out that the Whiskey Rebellion was about taxes, not whiskey -- but let's look at it further.

    In 1789, the Federal Government instituted a distillery tax which was per-gallon up to a certain yearly production, or a flat fee over a certain amount. The "flat fee" amount was exactly the amount that Washington produced, thereby allowing him to pay a lower rate on his alcohol than the rate paid by small independent distillers.

    Washington sent in Federal troops to quell the protests against the policy.

    So, yes, I think Gingrich is right.

    "I think Jefferson or George Washington would have strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques for dealing with it would have been rather more violent than the current government."

    Because both Washington and Jefferson grew hemp, and the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrates that Washington, at least, was willing to use Federal troops to protect his profit margin. So, yeah, they WOULD have strongly discouraged you from competing with them.

  • Douglas Willinger||

    @ian osmond-

    That is to Jefferson, what the roman Catholic Church is to Jesus Christ.

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