Anti-Pot Group Regrets the Repeal of Alcohol Prohibition

CNNCNNThe anti-pot group Project SAM was not pleased by President Obama's recent observation that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. "We take issue with the President's comparisons between marijuana and alcohol," says Project SAM Chairman Patrick J, Kennedy in a press release. He does not argue that Obama's statement was inaccurate—just that it was unhelpful to the prohibitionist cause. Kennedy explains that "two wrongs don't make a right: just because our already legal drugs may have very dangerous impacts on society it does not mean that other drugs should follow the same path." Note that the first "wrong," according to Kennedy, was making alcohol legal.  

Despite that decision, which Kennedy evidently considers a mistake, the U.S. government has managed to keep marijuana illegal for 77 years. Yet Kennedy worries that "the legalization of marijuana leads quickly to a slippery slope that could open the gates to legalization—and commercialization—of other addictive substances for recreational use." After all, "several of today's largest pro-marijuana-legalization groups have been advocating for the full-scale legalization of all recreational drugs, including psychedelics and cocaine." I'm not sure which groups Kennedy has in mind. The most prominent ones, such as the Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance, either do not address other drugs or take a position that falls well short of "full-scale legalization."

In any case, I wish American politicians and voters were as philosophically consistent as Kennedy suggests. But surveys find a huge gap between support for legalizing marijuana—a step backed by most Americans, according to several recent polls—and support for legalizing other drugs. A YouGov poll conducted in November, for instance, put support for legalizing heroin at 9 percent and support for legalizing cocaine at 11 percent. A 2012 Rasmussen poll got similar results.

Kennedy seems to think those gaps will be bridged soon:

Our country hasn't asked important questions about how far is too far with drug legalization. As parts of the United States plunge headlong into ill-informed drug policies rooted in opinions, political agendas and corporate greed, the President astutely notes that it is a matter of time before we're also asked to consider the legalization of a "negotiated dose of cocaine" or "a finely calibrated dose of meth." That is the nature of addiction and substance abuse. It leads to the next problem, and the next problem and the next—and many times, the damage is irreversible and irreparable.

According to Kennedy, the buzz from legalizing marijuana will soon fade, causing Americans to crave legalization of other psychoactive substances. History suggests that is the pattern followed by prohibition: A little is never enough. If legalization also works that way, I will be pleasantly surprised. 

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.

  • Sevo||

    ..."He does not argue that Obama's statement was inaccurate—just that it was unhelpful to the prohibitionist cause."...
    Hey, if we like a lie better than the truth, who cares? It's not like anyone is harmed, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Sevo||

    Well, at least you know why he'd prefer booze to be illegal.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Because THAT would have stopped Teddy from drinking.

    Of course, if we could ruin the lives of boozers like we do dopers, we may have been able to lock up Teddy instead of having to endure decades of his "leadership" in the Senate.

  • Loki||

    if we could ruin the lives of boozers like we do dopers, we may have been able to lock up Teddy

    Nope. Teddy was a member of a prestigious upper class white family. Now, it's possible that if alcohol prohibition hadn't been repealed, the Kennedy family would have stayed in the bootlegging business instead of moving into politics, so we may have been spared Teddy's "leadership" that way, but he wouldn't have ended up in prison.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You're right. Laws only apply to the little people.

  • ||

    Teddy killed a woman and that didn't keep him out of power, what makes you think illicit substance laws meant for the plebes would have stopped him?

  • Sevo||

    Got me by 2 minutes!

  • Sevo||

    Francisco d Anconia|1.21.14 @ 6:58PM|#
    "Because THAT would have stopped Teddy from drinking."
    Yeah, same way laws against killing people kept him from....

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why go as far as Teddy? Our dear Patrick is an alcoholic himself, as well as a cokehead and an Oxycontin addict. While riding the snake, he, hilariously, crashed his car in Capitol Hill. There was also the time he helped douchebag, serial rapist cousin cover-up a bout of surprise sex. I'm sure he was blotto during the entire time as well.

    Clearly, we must all suffer for the genetic disorder that in endemic to the Kennedy clan that causes them to be addicted to any substance, far and wide.

  • ||

    Why anybody is giving this degenerate the time of day is astonishing.

  • John C. Randolph||

    It's not about keeping them from drinking, it's about fortunes to be made in the liquor racket. Prohibition put old Joe on the map.

    -jcr

  • Hugh Akston||

    If Prohibition had continued, they could have all followed Joseph into the family business.

  • Brett L||

    Wasn't Paddy the one who quit Congress after several stints in rehab involving pills and hitting parked cars?

  • GroundTruth||

    It's always a hoot when one remembers that the money of the nanny, socialist clan comes from rumrunning during Prohibition.

    Or perhaps that's why they're so steadfast in their beliefs that no one should have any money of their own (well, except them, of course.)

  • Alec Leamas||

    Agreed. There is something excruciating about getting lectured to about money and economic justice by the latest little pampered freckled psychopath they manage to trot out. At least Joe Sr. stole, bullied and cheated his way to wealth and power - his descendants haven't the foggiest idea where money comes from for most people, and how they get it, and this ignorance seemingly increases with each generation.

  • ruby0015||

    my best friend's half-sister got paid $13253 a week ago. she is making money on the computer and moved in a $315200 house. All she did was get blessed and apply the information explained on this web page

    ---------- J­U­M­P­2­­6.­­ℭ­­Oℳ

  • Sevo||

    BTW, I'm getting a "Stand With Obama" ad, asking me to sign a petition telling rethug governors to stop "blocking" O-care!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You should click on it. The progs will be paying Reason money.

  • GroundTruth||

    Where do I get that link!!!

  • ||

    rooted in opinions, political agendas and corporate greed

    Don't let Big Marijuana make you their next victim.

  • SIV||

    and corporate greed

    Bible-beating socons!

  • ||

    Yeah, I guarantee you a bunch of proggies will start bleating for regulations and prohibitions if WalMart decides to break into the pot mari-ja-wana market.

    Drugs profits are bad, mmmkay?

  • Loki||

    It always comes back to TEH KKKORPORATE GREEDZ with these assclowns doesn't it?

  • Knoss||

    I think you mean the Kochprate greed.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The.
    Horror.

    The
    Hoooorrooooor!

    If he clutches those pearls any harder his hands will bleed.

    Hey Patrick...Fuck off slaver!

  • ||

    Fuck off slaver!

    He is from the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations...

  • Robert||

    In his case, don't you mean, "Slave off, fucker"?

  • pan fried wylie||

    Our country hasn't asked important questions about how far is too far with drug legalization prohibition. As parts of the United States plunge headlong into ill-informed drug policies rooted in opinions, political agendas and corporate union greed...

  • sarcasmic||

    I often ask drug warriors to tell me a reason to keep drugs illegal that could not also be used as a reason to reinstate Prohibition.

    I have yet to receive a rational or coherent response.

    I have also asked about the relation between crime from drug prohibition compared to crime during alcohol Prohibition, again without receiving a rational or coherent response.

    Drugs are bad. M'kay?

  • Robert||

    What they usually say is that, yes, they would like to prohibit liquor too, but that it's too late now, with the liquor interests having defeated it in all but the Moslem countries, and being entrenched by now, but it's not too late for cannabis because the latter is still less popular.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Divorce is bad, outlaw that, too... Hell, HATE is bad, let's just outlaw HATE! Wait, OK, I forgot, we're already doing that... Mandate LOVE, then ALL will be SOLVED!!!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Careful, that's what a productive Congress would do...

  • ||

    Mandate LOVE

    Love of Big Brother?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, yes, you are close… Love of Government Almighty, which is VERY close to Big Brother! This Helpful Thought brought to YOU by the ever-helpful Church of Scienfoology. To learn more, please visit www.churchofSQRLS.com … Where we WORSHIP Government Almighty! … OK, yes, I know, if we WORSHIP them, we might under-mine the entire Sacred Edifice of the Separation of Church and State… Pay TAXES to something that is WORSHIPPED?!?! Could bring down the entire concept of “Government Almighty” if the peons (or the Supreme Court, Hallowed Be Their Name) were to misunderstand it… But, do NOT worry, the Scienfoology web site has the solution to THAT particular conundrum, and SO much more…

  • PaulMcClancy||

    Regarding your second statement, I usually hear them reply saying alcohol can be moderated with use while other drugs can't. Basically it comes down to some cultural (read popularity contest) argument and dubious dosage control.

  • JeremyR||

    MADD is basically another prohibitionist group. They might not be directly making alcohol legal, but they are trying to make it as difficult to possible to drink...

  • sarcasmic||

    MADD is basically another prohibitionist group.

    The word is temperance, not prohibitionist.

  • ||

    They supported the 21 year law which is a prohibitionist law.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Which, by ripping away State power by Federal mandate, Reagan showed his true so-con colors. Not exactly his finest moment.

    ... Hobbit

  • GroundTruth||

    Like gun control advocates, it is necessary to keep the ultimate goal in mind. MADD is *not* about temperance, except as a gateway to prohibition.

  • Christophe||

    MADD's founder split off from the group over their ever increasing aggressiveness. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

    The current leadership are a bunch of statist fucks though.

  • Duncan20903||

    I thought that she got fired.

    Has everyone seen the MADD ranking on Charity Navigator? They squander a very large percentage of their contributions but they are completely honest about it.

    33.5% of the charity’s contributions are from the government. Thanks to US they're working.
    http://www.charitynavigator.or.....t_Kpeso7-k

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. If they supported drinking in moderation they would be a temperance group. They don't. But then, the historical Drys didn't either, and they called themselves a "Temperance" movement.

  • Duncan20903||

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/temperance

    tem·per·ance [tem-per-uhns, tem-pruhns]
    noun

    3. total abstinence from alcoholic liquors.

  • GroundTruth||

    Kennedys are like herpes, the gift that just keeps on giving.

  • John C. Randolph||

    "gift" per the German definition.

    -jcr

  • bassjoe||

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: legalize everything. Reasonably regulate. Pardon drug "criminals". Provide services to help addicts (at the very least least directions to the nearest AA meeting or other support groups).

    If Mr. Kennedy doesn't like the drugs, guess what? He can bar their use on his property, join a HOA where such things are barred by contract so he doesn't have to risk walking down the street smelling the ganja, or move to Singapore... I don't really give a crap.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If he bars their use on his property he'll never see any of his family again.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    I'm not sure which groups Kennedy has in mind. The most prominent ones, such as the Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance, either do not address other drugs or take a position that falls well short of "full-scale legalization."

    Well, the Marijuana Policy Project is a one-substance pony.

    The Drug Policy Alliance does address all substances, which I think is what PJK was getting at. While Ethan Nadelmann does not necessarily advocate for laissez-faire legalization; he does want the criminal justice system out of the choices of what adult Americans decide to ingest in their bodies.

  • Lost Sheep to Shepherd||

    Mary Jo Kopechne's son could not be reached for comment.

  • SQRLSY One||

    In other news today, Mary Jo Kopechne is... STILL dead!

  • Apocalyptic_Tourist||

    dry as the desert and funny as hell. Bravo

  • Paul.||

    You know who else hated smoking-- tobacco?

  • ||

    James I ?

  • JPyrate||

    A member of the Kennedy family that's for the prohibition of intoxicating chemicals.
    /snicker

  • Paul.||

    Didn't the Kennedy fortune essentially come from running liquor during prohibition?

    Let's start by impoverishing the entire clan.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I believe you are correct, which adequately explains why a Kennedy would consider the end of Prohibition a bad thing.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I believe you are correct, which adequately explains why a Kennedy would consider the end of Prohibition a bad thing. They had to go legit...well, they had to go into politics to survive.

  • JPyrate||

    Competition may be a sin, but consumption is holy. =)

  • ||

    The most prominent ones, such as the Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance, either do not address other drugs or take a position that falls well short of "full-scale legalization."

    Which makes them abject hypocrites.

  • Duncan20903||

    I don't think that it's hypocrisy to move forward on a case by case basis in a world where the stupid can only see two options when it comes to the re-legalization of the popular substances on the government's naughty lists. The two options being absolute prohibition or else being forced to allow the sales reps from the heroin factory to set up promotional display to hand out free samples in the lobbies of our elementary schools.

    There's a very substantial case that cannabis prohibition is a violation of our right to equal protection under the law which is protected by the 14th Amendment. One can not argue that cannabis should be illegal because of its alleged dangers while the more dangerous substances like drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco are legal. But that 14th Amendment violation can be cure by criminalizing those two substances just as easily as it can be cured by re-legalizing cannabis. I am **not** arguing that doing that would be good for our society.

    It's been over 36 1/2 years since I first made the choice to enjoy cannabis. It wasn't until a little more than a year ago when I first met a fan of heroin who was interested in lobbying for the re-legalization of heroin. There is no Cocaine Policy Project. There is no National Organization for the Reform of Methamphetamine Laws. In my mind that's a very significant difference.

  • Duncan20903||

    I don't have a problem with noting that I quit being a Libertarian in 2008 because the Libertarians would have just waved goodbye while chanting "swim free little sewer trout" as our economy swirled the bowl.

    "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate...it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." ~~ Andrew Mellon, 1930.

    So with the benefit of hindsight, tell me, how did that work out for our economy in 1930?

  • anomdebus||

    Do you mean to ask: how did not following that prescription work out in 1930?
    I don't remember Mellon given dictatorial power to enact those things.

  • JRS1001||

    very strange coming from a man who's family got rich off of illegal alcohol importation.(bootlegging)
    I guess a Kennedy will say anything to stay relevant in the public eye

  • ||

    How is that unusual? Prohibition done right by the Kennedy clan, why wouldn't they want it reinstated?

  • IceTrey||

    How far is too far? How much do you want to violate our liberty Mr. Kennedy?

  • David Wall||

    Note what happens when society becomes the level of analysis in determining what is good or bad. The individual becomes superfluous. Yes, this Kennedy heir represents the height of hypocrisy on several levels, but right now no major national figure challenges the basic premise of his argument. Until that is done, people will continue to support the evil he promotes by saying stuff, like, "Well, yeah, he's kind of a hypocrite, but at least his heart is in the right place."

    It is the basic premise that must be challenged and destroyed, and a correct one offered in its place before change will occur.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    A Kennedy thinks repeal of alcohol prohibition was a mistake? That like telling me that the Mexican cartels oppose MJ legalization. NO SH*T! Legalization messes with their business model.

  • Duncan20903||

    I really am getting to like that stupid Patrick Kennedy guy. What a great spokesmodel for the morons of prohibition. Hey Patrick, your foot looks like it tastes nasty, nasty, nasty! Why do you keep putting that thing in your mouth? Who ties this guys shoelaces?

    In tomorrow’s edition of Stupid Patrick's we’ll talk about the legendary strain of cannabis from the late 1970s called Matanuska County Thunderfuck, and explain why they had so much trouble getting it to exceed 30% THC back in 1979. Hint: they succeeded but Dr. Assholey from UMiss fixed the results. Same Pat time! Same Pat channel!

  • AlgerHiss||

    The number one group of people that will be fully traumatized by the legalization of marijuana will be…cops.

    Their lives, local or federal, are fully consumed with issues involving grass. They won’t know how to act if they can’t sniff, search, pat-down, swat raids, arrest, a little asset forfeiture, …these people are going to become zombies.

    And they’ll be even more dangerous than they are now.

  • Square||

    In CA at least the cops seem to want it off of their to-do lists. In Oakland MJ was "de-prioritized" about 15 years ago - cops pretty openly said "unless you walk up and blow it in my face or you have a plant growing out of your bedroom window, we're going to ignore you, because we as Oakland cops have better things to do than go after pot smokers."

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Since Patrick J. Kennedy and the rest of his family can't control their addictions, the rest of us must bear the brunt of the War On Drugs. It's a trifling detail that he gets to go to rehab while non-Kennedys go to prison.

  • Square||

    It's a feature, not a detail.

    If nobles like the Kennedys have such disastrous relationships with intoxicating chemicals, just think what catastrophes will result from allowing the licentious peasants access!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    So, this is the offspring of Teddy (I'm so useless nobody bothered to shoot me) Kennedy and a woman willing to mate with Teddy Kennedy. Yeah, looks and acts like he's missing some vital chromosomes.

  • ||

    Hmm, I seem to remember Pat makes his living providing "counseling" to those convicted of marijuana possession. Court mandated counseling, at a cost of course.

  • Paul Pot||

    Beware the tyrants who warns of the slippery slope.

    What is this slippery slope?

    Legalization in Colorado, Washington and Uruguay did not just happen.

    Before that there was 20+ yrs of decriminalization and medical marijuana in the US and around the world.

    This happened as the result of a lot of hard work. Activists lobbied, reporters reported, families argued, it was discussed in the bedroom, in the boardroom and in the bar room. Everybody talked this out till they were blue in the face and there was nothing left to be said and then they voted.

    This is called the democratic process by many but for some it is the slippery slope.

    Those who would have you believe that democracy is some kind of slimy, slippery slide would rather you did not take part in the political process and left the workings of democracy to them.

    In other words, "stay off my turf. I'm in charge, not you".

    People who warn of the slippery slope are tyrants.

    Turn your back on slippery slopers, they're out to rob you of your rights.

  • MSimon||

    I'm not sure which groups Kennedy has in mind.

    LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

  • MSimon||


    Peter Christ On Why We NEED to legalize ALL Drugs

    Peter is a LEAP speaker. Video at the link.

  • lulu||

    let me get this straight...the junkie Kennedy thinks repealing prohibition is bad...wow; funny the Kennedy clan made their wealth during prohibition and the booze kept Chappaquiddick Fats Kennedy pickled til his death.

  • @ShawingtonTimes||

    The questions pollsters should (but are afraid to) ask is:

    Would you prefer that YOUR daughter or son be sent to prison for several years for possession or use of (currently) illegal drugs or enrolled in a community based treatment program?

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