Republicans Against Prohibition

|

George Soros may be determined to defeat George W. Bush, but one of the political groups he funds plans to welcome Republican delegates to New York next week. The Drug Policy Alliance is running an ad in The New York Sun aimed at convincing Republican delegates that opposition to the war on drugs is a respectable position on the right. The ad quotes Milton Friedman, Bill Buckley, Grover Norquist, George Shultz, Gary Johnson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is by no means a full-fledged antiprohibitionist but has come out in favor of medical access to marijuana).

Unfortunately, that nearly exhausts the list of prominent Republicans who have criticized the war on drugs (although the DPA might have mentioned Ron Paul, the only consistent antiprohibitionist in Congress). While Democrats who hold office are not any better, I suspect the delegates in Boston were more receptive to the Drug Policy Alliance's message than the Republicans in New York will be. As DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann concedes, his group's membership tilts decidedly toward "the progressive end of the spectrum," to the extent that "a few people…were a little weirded out that we were making this kind of pitch and welcoming the Republicans."

That discomfort is one reason gestures like this are important. Leftish critics of the drug war who know the history of alcohol prohibition should recognize that support from seemingly unlikely allies will be crucial in achieving serious reform.

NEXT: Repressing Elizabeth Loftus

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.

  1. How do you make the case to people that ending the prohibition on cooking crystal meth in the bathroom is a good thing? That shit is fucking evil bad, and far too powerful and destructive.

    I think the strategy should simply to decriminalize drug possession and defund some of the more odius aspects of the WOD (Plan Columbia).

  2. “Only slightly related to the post subject, I have to wonder why Reason has ads for a “Screw the tobacco companies” campaign on the adbar to the right.”

    I’ve been scratching my head about this, too. Are these guys going for a major conversion? These prohibitionist propoganda ads are amusing, though. They always find the youngest, sweetest, youngest, most wholesome white girl to awkwardly pose for these things. I mean, take a close look. It seems that the chick never held a butt in her life.

    If they were to be a little more honest, they would depict some goth skank with tons of eye makeup and the cig dangling naturally from her pierced lips.

  3. “2,000 kids will get addicted to tobacco daily — 1/3 OF WHOM WILL DIE EARLY”

    Mind you, they won’t die as children, but as frog-throated 60-70 year-olds, who will no longer drain medicare or social security. The tragedy.

  4. hey trainwreck:

    How do you make the case to people that ending the prohibition on cooking crystal meth in the bathroom is a good thing?

    Easy. By explaining to people that meth cookers will have no financial incentive to turn their bathrooms into chem labs when all their former customers are buying clean, uncut, pharmaceutical grade meth from the local drug store at a fraction of the black market price.

    The bigger challenge is making the case that individuals have a right to choose what they want to put into their own bodies and a responsibility to accept the consequences of their choices.

  5. The largest marijuana law reform rally took place last weekend in Seattle. The Greens, Libertarians, and Democrats all had representation at Hempfest. Members of the Kerry campaign were also in attendance. An invite went out to the GOP and members of the Bush campaign, they chose not to come via formal representation. They may have been there as undercover!

    I personally work on speaker recruitment for HF. One of my goals is to bring in more conservative points of views. HF is proudly nonpartisan, but only a fool would fail to recognize the large tilt to the left in those that attend and volunteer. If anyone of you know of a conservative who would be willing to speak at HF, please send them my way via email or send them to http://www.seattlehempfest.com.

    Les-
    HF honors Peter McWilliams with the McWilliams Stage. We come together every year to put an end to such cruel incarceration of mmj patients.

    Kudos to Ethan Nadelman on his speech on Sunday, well done.

  6. fyodor-

    I suppose that obstacles can be overcome. I wonder how momentum was built to resist the mafia and repeal alcohol prohibition. I suspect that, despite the popularity of alcohol prohibition in certain quarters (at least before it was implemented), alcohol never faced the same widespread social stigma that certain drugs face today. Maybe the government was simply better at the propaganda this time around?

    Despite the obstacles, I do believe that drug legalization, if it ever happens, will have to enjoy very strong GOP support, not just peeling off a handful of maverick GOP legislators to vote with the Democrats. I say this for the same reason that Nixon was the one to open relations with China, welfare reform happened under Clinton, and Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug bill.

  7. By explaining to people that meth cookers will have no financial incentive to turn their bathrooms into chem labs when all their former customers are buying clean, uncut, pharmaceutical grade meth from the local drug store at a fraction of the black market price.

    I think the proponents of legalization would be better off without a strategy of “Don’t worry, your kids can buy crystal meth much cheaper this way.”

  8. Joe also fails to mention that it was the Clinton crime bill that instituted the death penalty for drug kingpins. In fact, if joe was your only source of information, you’d think Clinton just sat there passively during his eight years, doing nothing positive or negative in re the WoD, which is nonsense.

  9. I’m sorry Russ, but to me, the idea of buying my liquor at a state run liquor store, then going next door to get an 8-ball of yayo for friday nights party at the state run drug store, is simply laughable.

    Russ, do you know any tweakers, i.e. meth addicts? Allowing the state to provide them with the means to further their addiction would be an injustice, inhumane action. Once these people fry their neurons, then they are totally reliant on the state.

    I can go for decriminalization of possesion, but I don’t think the state needs to sanction the use of every substance that might get one high. Addiction to meth or heroin or morphine isn’t exactly “freedom”.

  10. I don’t know how it is to be done, but one thing that needs to happen in the WOD debate is the end of the circular argument.

    Rough transcript of interview on NPR last week:

    Interviewer: Why is methamphetamine illegal?

    North Dakota Sherriff: Because it’s bad.

    Interviewer: Why is methamphetamine bad?

    North Dakota Sherriff: Because it’s illegal.

    I do not mean to pick on NPR, they’re no worse than other media outlets at not having good bullshit detectors.

    There are also cops who aren’t complete assholes (see LEAP), just not very many.

  11. Another useful strategy might be to stop pretending drug traffickers are harmless. I don’t support legalization because I think the cartels are romantic outlaws, I support legalization because they’re horrific butchers with bin Laden-level blood on their hands. Pablo Escobar used to have people sealed in drums of acid, in between setting off thousand pound bombs in crowded cities in the hope of killing a judge. Their latest trick is to build their own submarines capable of trans-continental shipping. No threat to our well-being from criminal syndicates haveing THAT technologhy.

    If it wasn’t cocaine these scum got rich off of, it would be kiddie porn, military hardware, or kidnapped Thai kids. I want the government to use every tool available to put people like that out of commission.

    Tool #1, of course, is defunding them via decriminalization.

  12. Drug policy reform is going to come from a grass-roots level, and not from Washington. Too much entrenched financial incentives at the federal level from pharmaceuticals, drug testing firms, drug warriors, etc.

    However, public opinion is gradually shifting. I run into more people every day who say that they think drugs are bad, but they’ve finally come to the conclusion that some kind of legalization is the correct answer. Many of these people are still hesitant to speak publicly about it, so it’s going to take grass-roots effort to build enough mass that speaking out is considered OK. Then I think you’ll see some real movement, first with medical marijuana and then some decrim options. (and it will take help from all sides of the political spectrum).

  13. I think looking at drug law reform from a republican vs. democrat perspective is incorrect. I read something a couple of years back (probably on this site) pointing out the east coast/west coast differences in viewing the government as a nanny.

    East coasters are more interested in having someone tell them what to do, while westerners are more individualistic. The idea that drug use needs personal responsibility doesn’t sell as well in eastern states as western ones.

  14. Trainwreck: How does continued sanctioning of the substance prevent addiction?

    Nobody here is trying to argue that drugs are good for you. The point is that the cure is worse than the disease.

    The black market created by prohibition of marijuana and narcotics has created more problems for society than the drugs themselves ever did.

    Not only that, the (arguably) most dangerous drug of them all – alcohol – is still completely legal, albeit highly taxed. Imagine how much worse things would be though, if it was still illegal?

  15. “Drug policy reform is going to come from a grass-roots level, and not from Washington. Too much entrenched financial incentives at the federal level from pharmaceuticals, drug testing firms, drug warriors, etc.”

    I see this argument made all the time around here, on all sorts of issues, and I just don’t buy it. It rests on the assumption that a public figure working on a problem is promoting his self interest by keeping that problem alive, and would be putting himself out of business if he solved it. That’s insane. If a government employee actually managed to solve a problem as big as drug abuse, he would be lauded as one of the greatest heros our country has ever produced. He’s get promotion after promotion, every elected official in America would want to shake his hand in front of cameras, and he’s end up getting both parties’ nomination for President.

    This phony “bad faith” argument goes nowhere.

  16. i think you’re out of your gourd on this one joe.

    no one can “solve” drug abuse any more than someone could “solve” other bad habits. you can throw them in jail, set them on fire, or launch them at the moon in a specially-built catapult, but that’s about it.

    it’s not like there’s ever really blowback from a gov’t agency failing at their stated job. without drug prohibition, the DEA ceases to exist and all of those lovely asset seizures will stop. that’s a huge amount of money just there, not counting everything else involved…no one in their right mind would turn off the spigot. this is on top of the assumption that people genuine believe this heebie-jeebie drugs-as-succubi attitude in some way, and it’s not mere cynicism and self-preservation staying the course.

  17. yobbo I agree with you that the cure is worse than the disease with the War on Drugs.

    I don’t the prohibiting drug production and use is *necessarily* what has created more problems for society. I think the criminalization, and attempts to surpress the black market, are the problem.

    Just leave the black market alone, and make sure the damned drug dealers report their income accurately at tax time.

    Joe: I work with the federal government all the time. I have seen agencies create crises which led to gigantic increases in their staff and funding. It’s a well documented phenomenon, I would urge you to be a bit more skeptical.

  18. What I meant was,

    I don’t believe prohibiting drug production and use is necessarily the problem. Prohibition is one thing, while criminalization is another.

  19. joe-

    I don’t think that bureaucrats are deliberately fumbling the drug war to keep the gravy train going. The drug war is inherently unwinnable, so no fumbling is needed.

    However, I do think that too many bureaucrats are (1) refusing to admit the truth (that this is an unwinnable war) because to do so would be to argue against their jobs and (2) some are probably on the payroll of drug dealers. Prohibition is the only thing protecting drug dealers from the toughest competitors of all: Big corporations that would corner the market in no time.

  20. WTF? The drug war began with Nixon?

    Let’s not mistake federal pre-emption of draconian state drug enforcement for the beginning of the problem. In fact, sentences were consistently harsh.

    Anecdotally, the seventies were much kinder to the drug offenders than the old days when you could spend a year in county lock up for simply being in a car with someone who was ‘holding’.

    Yeah, there, I dated myself. 🙂

  21. thoreau asked:
    “I wonder how momentum was built to resist the mafia and repeal alcohol prohibition.”

    I thought I read somewhere that prohibition was repealed because it was another job-producing measure–putting distillers and brewers back to work. This was when The Great Depression was beginning.

    If it’s so, it’s depressing because such an extraordinary confluence of circumstances are unlikely as a way to end the WOD.

    Everyone should reread what Anonymous for Obvious Reasons posted, btw.

  22. joe,

    A government employee cannot solve the drug problem. He or she can only propose a particular policy as a potential solution. Right now, governmnet employees who propose legalization are not likely to get much support, don’t you think? Government generally reacts to crisis or consensus, not to good ideas.

    And maybe I missed it, but did anyone here really engage in “pretending drug traffickers are harmless”? Of course they’re not, and that’s largely because they traffic in illegal goods. If drugs were legal, their traffickers would be no worse than any other greedy corporation! 🙂

  23. And maybe I missed it, but did anyone here really engage in “pretending drug traffickers are harmless”?

    Fyodor, I would like to enlighten you on some things, but I am better off not saying anything that could incriminate Reason under the RAVE act.

  24. I also have to agree to what Anonymous for Obvious Reasons is saying. Take for instance California’s medical marijuana law. Its been on the books for about 8 years now and its still chaotic. There is a faction inside the mmj community that does not what decriminalization due to current profits. This faction has been successful in fracturing the community that does want decriminalization and create much mistrust between groups pursuing the same end goals. Sadly, they cannot come together collectively on any single issue since passing prop 215.

    Its not the DEA creating all the havoc, much of it is owed to the wolves in sheep clothing.

  25. “If drugs were legal, their traffickers would be no worse than any other greedy corporation!”

    All joking aside, if drugs were legal, their traffickers would be running numbers, pimping teenaged girls, doing murders for hire, or running truck loads of converted Uzis up I-95, and killing their competition with the same zeal they demonstrate today.

    These people are not our (that is, peaceful citizens who oppose prohibition) friends, and I want to take away their best source of profit.

  26. joe-

    No doubt some of them would be doing those things if drugs were legal. But with less money in the game surely some of them would opt for more legit work. Not all, probably not even a majority, but enough to notice. And with less money they wouldn’t be able to bribe nearly as many cops, judges, etc.

    My father launders drug money. I have never been close enough to his business to observe the sorts of things that the anonymous poster above observed, but I do understand that he and his associates have, on occasion, enjoyed a few favors from high places. Beyond that vague gist I don’t know anything else.

    My father is the sort of thug who would be laundering money from other illicit sources if drugs were legal. But if drugs were legal there’d certainly be less money for him to launder. And that would be a very good thing.

    Incidentally, most here (myself included) would argue for eliminating virtually all restrictions on gambling (at least by adults) to deprive those guys of another source of revenue (you referred to “running numbers”). And I’d certainly argue in favor of fully legalizing adult prostitution to deprive those guys of yet another revenue source (I notice you made a point of saying “pimping teenaged girls”, so presumably you agree there).

    I’d also observe that a black market is springing up for untaxed cigarettes, suggesting that tobacco taxes should be lower. Complete elimination isn’t necessary, the taxes just have to be low enough so that most consumers would rather not bother with meager black market savings.

  27. joe, in response to your “all joking aside…”

    Most of the crimes you refer to are “defined into existence” exactly like making drugs illegal. (If we could go back in time to our Founders, it would be ludicrous to make a certain drug illegal. Granted they were not that many years removed from when animals were put on trial. But still.)
    Maybe, under a separate topic we could all discuss what a true crime is, but most of us would not trust a politician nor a policeman to define it.
    My guess is ninety-nine percent of “crimes” are just YOUR–not you personally, joe–digusting habits.

  28. This is smart. Ending prohibition won’t happen as a partisan issue, but as an intellectual revolution. One day, bam, it will be conventional wisdom that the Drug War is bad policy. Setting it up as a partisan issue will hinder that eventuality.

  29. Only slightly related to the post subject, I have to wonder why Reason has ads for a “Screw the tobacco companies” campaign on the adbar to the right.

  30. Unfortunately, that nearly exhausts the list of prominent Republicans who have criticized the war on drugs (although the DPA might have mentioned Ron Paul, the only consistent antiprohibitionist in Congress).

    National Review makes occasional stabs at anti-prohibitionism. I don’t know how “prominent” I’d call any of those guys but I suspect they are household names among a fair percentage of GOP conventioneers — at least as much as Grover Norquist.

  31. “Only slightly related to the post subject, I have to wonder why Reason has ads for a “Screw the tobacco companies” campaign on the adbar to the right.”

    Let’$ ju$t con$ider Rea$on’$ po$$ible motivation$, $hall we?

    They are capitalists, after all.

  32. What a bunch of sellouts…

  33. “Let’$ ju$t con$ider Rea$on’$ po$$ible motivation$, $hall we?”
    A better question is, who decided this would be a good spot for the ad?

  34. Next to a Sullum post of all things! Didn’t he write a whole friggin’ book opposing the kind of people who are sponsoring that ad?

  35. With regard to the comments about methamphetamine, ending Prohibition against AMphetamines in general would not only create a legal, regulated market, it would put the bathtub meth producers out of business.

    There’s a demand for homemade meth, but that is simply people seeking amphetamines (stimulants) in general. Given legal access, most people who enjoy the use of stimulants would prefer a more low-dose ride than what they currently get from homemade meth.

    —-
    With regard to ‘decrim’, this is already the case for marijuana in 12 states and it still puts responsible users into the criminal justice system via misdemeanor fines (which if unpaid can lead to jail time) and other court records which can dog an otherwise law-abiding citizen for life.
    Decrim also fails to address the need for a regulated market on all commerical sales, otherwise the sellers are not regulated. No taxes paid, no age ID checks, and the inflated profits which Prohibition assures are channeled into other criminal ventures, most of which are more damaging to society than drug use.

    IF you support Prohibition, you at least defacto and perhaps more directly support criminal, unregulated control of distribution for risky substances.

    We prefer a more regulated system and this demands an end to 21st century Prohibition.

    Check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://leap.cc/tbay

  36. The other motivation, Joe, is that speech should be free and unfettered… including commercial speech. How hypocritical would it be for Reason to reject the advertising of potential sponsor because the message diverged from the publication’s philosophy? For the record, I commend Reason for honoring its principles in publishing the ads of opposing viewpoints. Bravo. Bravissimo!

    And I disagree with you on another point, Joe. The bias against drugs will evolve slowly over time. Much of the current opposition to marijuana falls along generational lines… it is also cyclical. As the 60s generation ages, there will be more tolerance of marijuana and other recreational drugs. Right now, the climate is easing and medical marijuana will eventually become legal… a good first step. There will be swings of heavier use and acceptance followed by retrenchment. Social change is in the swing of the pendulum.

  37. The problem with the drug war is that it plays into the pro-government biases of both ends of the spectrum.

    Social conservatives believe that government has a legitimate role in policing self-destructive behaviors of all kinds. Their buy-in is solid.

    Leftist believes that individuals are not responsible for their own lives and that negative outcomes must be the result of broader external actors whom the government has a duty to suppress. A section of the political spectrum that holds that McDonald’s is responsible for an individuals obesity is not going to adopt a model of drug addiction that emphasizes individual responsibility.

    joe is correct that it will take an intellectual revolution to substantially change drug policy. First, we have to wean people off the idea that drug addiction is a chemical analog of demonic possession. People don’t become addicts because they are physically exposed to drugs. They become addicts because of their internal psychological states. Most people who become physically addicted to opiates during pain management of an illness or accident do not develop a psychological addiction to the opiates once injury causing the pain heals. They walk away from drugs and never look back.

    Currently, both ends of the spectrum portrays drugs as an external attack that the government has a responsibility to fend off with it’s police powers. If we can get people to think about drug addiction in terms of psychological need and poor individual choices much of the political rationale for the War on Drugs will evaporate.

  38. Heh. I had wondered about that ad myself. I thought that it was a joke until I clicked on the link. Still, Hit n’ Run is not policed and takes all comments, so I don’t see why they can’t do the same for the ads. Let people make up their minds is the attitude, and I agree with that attitude – even though I think the viewpoint of the ad is a crock of shit – now if it addressed an issue like say government subsidies for tobacco farmers…

  39. I can’t speak for the staff but I think the blog ads on the sidebar are an either/or proposition. As a blog site you either take what you get or take nothing at all.

    My favorite is that idiotic gay world war II NOVEL. “the horrors of the battlefield seem real”.

    Now there’s a trailer that’s sure to sell books…

  40. While Democrats who hold office are not any better, I suspect the delegates in Boston were more receptive to the Drug Policy Alliance’s message than the Republicans in New York will be.

    WTF!?? I don’t see how you came up with that. The Dems are every bit (if not more so) devoted to all forms of Big Gov, telling you what you can and can not do, including… no, make that especially, the war on drugs.

    Reps and Dems ARE the establishment. Both are equally dedicated to acquiring and wielding power over the rest of us. Every suggestion that one is a bit less hostile to the blessings of liberty than the other, simply ignores all of history.

  41. “How hypocritical would it be for Reason to reject the advertising of potential sponsor because the message diverged from the publication’s philosophy?”

    Um, not hypocritical at all, because Reason has consistenly and repeatedly argued that Free Speech includes the right to reject speech that the speaker doesn’t wish to convey.

  42. Joe is right, the issue must have across the board support to succeed.

    But that isn’t ever going to happen, ever. Once they removed cocaine from Coke and took the opimum away from those awful yellow people, it was all downhill from there.

    True enough, there are more Republicans, like my 75 year old father, who support drug legalization than you might imagine, but there are nowhere near enough of them to resolve the problem.

    For that matter, most of my progressive lefty friends are against legalization as well. Okay, they’re good on medical marywanna but other than that….

    Hell, even the stoners from my yoot are agin it.

    Most people from every spectrum react to the issue exactly as O’Reilly did when he called Jacob a “pinhead” on air and blamed him for fanning the flames of drug addiction.

  43. Let’s see, the War on Drugs was started under Nixon, ramped up under Reagan, mandatory minimums got going under Bush, and Bush/Ashcroft started using anti-terror legislation to go after drug smugglers.

    Damn that Clinton for continuing the status quo set the other party.

    No, really, damn him. But let’s keep some perspective here.

    Kerry supports states rights on medicinal marijuana. Bush?

  44. Shannon Love,

    Good post, but don’t forget to point out the harm it does, such as empowering street gangs and putting that nice kid across the street who never harmed anyone in jail.

  45. Annie kept on speedin’

    Her health was gettin’ poor

    Saw things at the winda

    Heard things at the door

    She would not heed my warnin’

    She wouldn’t hear what I said

    Now she’s in a graveyard

    She’s awfully dead

  46. I was thinking about the sudden versus gradual issue and I remembered what Casey Stengel said about the 1969 Miracle New York Mets, which was something like, “They real slowly got better all of a sudden!”

  47. Don’t forget Bush orginally campaigned that it should be a state issue. You will not get anything different from Kerry.

  48. I think Democrats are less eager to prosecute the War On Drugs, especially the worst parts of it. And that’s good.

    But I suspect that any real progress on it will someday have to come from Republicans.

  49. Klay makes a good point that’s often forgotten around here. Remember all the shit Bush campaigned on. Better to look at Kerry’s record, as well as that of the Dem Party.

  50. Pedro,

    I think that’s what most of us are looking at, best as we can. Unfortunately, it’s up to the executive to prosecute the laws so there’s likely little to either backup or contradict Kerry’s claim that he’ll respect medical marijuana laws. But I think joe’s right that the harshest prosecution has come from Republican administrations, even if the Democratic ones have been disappointing. Anyone dispute that?

  51. Public opinion isn’t the only obstacle here. I have known a few people involved in the drug trade, and while I’ve never been involved myself I’ve learned a few things about how they operate.

    It’s scary to see the amount of inside help that they get from people in the government. Although most cops, judges, prosecutors, military officers, IRS auditors, customs inspectors, and legislators aren’t on the take, a handful definitely are, and that handful is enough to do what they need done. I only know a handful of what goes on, but the audacity of the things that I do know is mind boggling. These guys don’t just bribe gov’t officials to look the other way. Sometimes they manipulate the system to take down their rivals, or even government officials aiding their rivals.

    I only know a handful of names, and none of these names are household words. But I once spent some time browsing news articles for a name that I know, and sure enough he showed up as a bit player in some major stories. It puts some things in a whole new perspective.

    Drug legalization doesn’t have a prayer. If momentum ever did build they could arrange so that the next drug bust was against dealers who use children as mules, or against dealers who traffic in kiddie porn on the side. They could arrange the arrest of a drug dealer who kills his enemies in especially graphic ways. They could arrange for major politicians to express their outrage at the deranged people selling drugs, and whip up some fresh anti-drug sentiment.

    And if that wagging of the dog doesn’t work, well, the legislators pushing for legalization had better be perfect boy scouts. Drug dealers have the money to hire private investigators and special effects experts who can modify sound and video. If the sponsor of a major legalization bill had ever cheated on his wife, had ever taken even a single bribe, these people could find it, and they could doctor the story to turn it into anything they want.

    What we’re talking about is a multi-billion dollar industry that has allies inside the government and that uses murder, blackmail, theft, and bribery on a daily basis. They enjoy their black market pricing scheme, and they won’t let anything end that.

  52. “Let’s see, the War on Drugs was started under Nixon, ramped up under Reagan, mandatory minimums got going under Bush, and Bush/Ashcroft started using anti-terror legislation to go after drug smugglers.”

    …and, if I’m not mistaken (I don’t have documentation on these points – if anyone has the info I’d be happy to stand corrected) the WOD budget went up far more (overall, or per year) under Clinton than under any previous presidents. And if I’m not mistaken Clinton instituted or supported some of the most egregious violations of constitutional rights (mostly related to search and seizure) seen up to that point in the name of WOD (that he’s been outdone by Ashcroft and Bush should hardly be a point of pride). And as I recall the only voices against WOD during the Clinton years were a couple of very lonely reps, like Ron Paul and former NM gov Gary Johnson. And Clinton sicced his drug czar on Johnson so fast his head spun.

    Unfortunately Clinton was hardly status quo on WOD (although I guess you could say he ramped up WOD comparably to other presidents, so maybe in that sense he was status quo). There’s more than enough blame to go around for both dems and reps for this disgusting mess.

  53. A little more sophisticated, Joe, I would call your argument sophistry. Of course the publishers of Reason have the freedom to reject certain advertisers. The editors of a newspaper have the right to reject letters. And tell me, Joe, how would the cause of free speech be served if the editors of the local paper refused to print any letter that disagreed with the editorial board?

    I’m sure the editors of Reason would support the right of Guns and Ammo to refuse to run a Handgun Control ad. The difference here, Joe, is that Guns and Ammo is not dedicated to “free minds and free markets.” If a publication is going to sail under the banner of free exchange of ideas… I think it reasonable (pun intended) to open the doors to all. If a libertarian publication systematically excluded all non-libertarian thought (paid or unpaid)… what word other than “hypocritical” would you suggest.

  54. Drug in general with the Democrats – they want to it still to be a criminal offense but with forced treatment (even without addiction) is their goal.

    The Republicans just want to throw you in jail.

    Medical Marijuana does have a chance because of the overwhelming support but we are a long way from anything else. I don’t picture either Kerry or Bush truly supporting Medical Marijuana unless states overwhelmingly approve it.

    There aren?t any real differences in the Republicans or Democrats ? the majority of the time they vote in support of the same things and are basically on the same side (bigger government).

  55. No no no no no joe. Shame.

    The drug war was boosted under Clinton as well.

  56. More people were arrested for possession of marijuana during the Clinton administration than during any other. Also, the Clinton administration fought ruthlessly against medical marijuana, to the point of actually causing the death of Peter McWilliams who was threatened by a federal judge and prosecutors with prison if he tested positive for the only drug that controlled his nausea. Denied that drug, he choked to death on his vomit.

    One of the things that disgusted me most about Al Gore was his vocal support for Clinton adminstration marijuana policies despite the fact that he smoked bales of the stuff in college.

  57. I once asked Judge James Gray, formerly a Republican and now a Libertarian running for US Senate, why he left the GOP when he would have had a shot at being elected to legislative office on the GOP ticket. He said that he sees zero hope of drug reform coming from the GOP. That didn’t really answer my question, since I don’t see any hope of electing anybody to the Senate on the LP ticket in the near future, but it did tell me just how bad things are in the GOP.

    Not that the Democrats are significantly better, mind you.

    As to the conspiratorial post above, it reminds me of a story from Judge Gray’s book. Nevada has some dry counties, believe it or not. A measure was put on the ballot in one of those counties to allow the sale of alcohol. It looked like the measure would pass until shortly before the election, when a massive propaganda blitz hit the airwaves. The measure was defeated. Apparently the propaganda blitz was funded by liquor stores in neighboring counties who were afraid of losing business to new competition inside the dry county.

    If that’s what businesses operating in the open market will do to keep a prohibition law in place, I’m afraid to ask what businesses in the black market might do.

  58. I used to share the hope that the dying-off of pre-Boomers would result in a net swing against at least some of the more insane measures of the Drug War, but I’m more pessimistic now. As a generation, the Boomers are disgustingly self-righteous, and are willing to extend their hypocrisy to include prosecution of younger generations for what they enjoyed without consequence in their youths. I’m not sure my generation will be any better.

  59. “…. the WOD budget went up far more (overall, or per year) under Clinton…”

    If this is true, it’s quite possibly because of the Republicon Congress. (I am merely speculating). However Clinton did nothing to slow the WOD (especially on pot) down.

    I do recall the trial balloon the clintonistas floated via Joycelyn Elders. Needless to say the found a way to cut her loose when they got a negative response.

    Recall also WJC’s interview with Rolling Stone wherein he proposed legalization two weeks before the 2000 election. This guaranteed that a readership not particularly known for deep thought came away with the conclusion that “Clinton’s so Cool”. More perceptive souls may have pondered why this was the first time they had heard such a thing from him.

  60. Read DEEP AS THE MARROW (novel)by F. Paul Wilson – it’s about legalizing marijuana – in it a DEA agent and a drug lord team together try to stop the President from making it legal by kidnapping, etc.

    It is a very interesting book.

  61. I’m sure you’ve all seen the statistics saying that over half of all prisoners in this country are incarcerated on drug charges; I’m sure you’ve also read various stories about rapes and murders and such committed by violent felons who were let out of prison early to ease [drug-related] overcrowding. Personally, I don’t think the WOD will end until the cost of arresting and incarcerating these people gets so appallingly high that we simply can’t afford to continue.

    On the other hand, since more and more prisons and/or jails are requiring prisoners to pay for their stay, perhaps we’ll never reach that point.

  62. Re thoreau and anon, no one expects it to be easy, but remember obstacles are not destiny, they can be overcome. I’m sure a lot of changes have occurred throughout history that at some point seemed impossible. But point taken, there are powerful vested interests, and I ain’t holding my breath.

  63. Evidently I am not explaining myself sufficiently. I’ll try again:

    The Federal Reserve Banks make loans to the Guv’mint, which promises to pay the loans, but never does; all it can pay is interest money, never the principal, as it’s too big. This is the ‘National Debt’. It is not owed to you; it is owed to the banks. Uncle pays that interest with taxes. But the Treasury prints up a hellacious amount of currency (not backed by anything but that promise). This is where those pretty green papers come from.

    Print too much pretty paper, and you get inflation. But, try to pay down the debt, and you get taxpayers up in arms from having to shoulder increasing tax burdens. This leaves only one other safety valve: dope money. Uncle likes it this way, as he doesn’t have to raise taxes to get what he wants. The dealers like it because they can finesse the system.

    When illicits are relegalized, then the amount of paper money flowing through those banks will decrease. Part of the reason for that is that those dealers who have their fingers in the political pie will know when the change is coming, and withdraw their funds. (Since much of the trade is actually done on credit, the bills for the previous load of dope, at it’s artificially high price, will have to be paid off. Anything afterwards is loss cutting. The Mob had to do this when alcohol was relegalized, and they put the remaining ‘seed money’ into just that; seeds for opiate crops.) This will in turn cause lessened economic growth as the money supply in banks is withdrawn. Less money will be in circulation as a result. Meaning less money will be available. If the Treasury doesn’t interfere, we get deflation, meaning the dollar rises in value, credit once again becomes tight, and economic growth slows even more. If the Treasury does interfere, as it has in every instance of economic crises, then we get more inflation.

    I repeat: Uncle is well aware of this at the highest levels. It’s part of the reason why despite all the hue and cry for the last 30 years about the DrugWar being an obvious botch, it’s been maintained and ‘improved’ by things like forfeiture. Anything to keep the cash rails greased.

    But the slow, steady advance of drug law reform is causing the necessary questions to be asked as to how to keep the economy going after the narcodollars disappear. Maintaining artificially high prices through exhorbitant taxation for something that’s a dirt cheap aggie product won’t work. (How much would you be willing to pay for legal weed? As much as you are paying now? I doubt it…) So, despite all the talk about ‘taxing the hell out of it’, it still won’t replace the vast amounts being brought in now. Something will have to be done, as the problem reaches too far into the economic innards of the US to be dismissed as easily as some would like to do.

  64. Paging Milton Friedman…
    An economist of some note favoring drug legalization.

  65. “Legalize all… all drugs, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not afraid.”

    (toke)
    Me neither!
    (cough cough)
    heh heh heh heh heh

  66. kaptinemo’s posts sound somewhat fishy. I’ve always been better at microeconomics than at macroeconomics, so maybe I’m wrong, but his statement that a third of the money flowing through the banks is drug money sounds fishy. That would imply that a third of GDP is due to the drug trade, which I find very difficult to believe.

    Now, a third of the deposits at any given time may be from somebody who did business with somebody who did business with somebody who did business with a drug dealer, but that’s confusing the multiplier effects a bit too much.

    The most likely negative economic impact of legalization will be in drug exporting places like South America and Afghanistan. In the US, the places hardest hit will be prison towns that depend on the prison for jobs, and maybe towns with factories that manufacture police gear. But the overall economy is far too diversified for drug legalization to seriously harm it. OK, California will be hit, since the largest cash crop is marijuana, but once again the key factor is that CA is a net exporter of pot.

    The notion that drug money alone is propping up the banking system and federal budget seems a tad too paranoid even for me.

  67. I just noticed this weekend a sign advertising cigaretts “on sale” for $5 a pack. I couldn’t fucking believe it. I first got mad because 80% of that is taxes.

    But then I thought..

    One pack of quality chronic joints would be an absolute steal at $5, $6, hell, even $10 given today’s black-market prices, plus the added benefit of not worrying about your life being destroyed by arrests/convictions/jail. The guvmint could tax the living hell out of MJ and libertarian heads like me would consider ourselves lucky.

    Since the infrastructure is already there to grow tobacco, it would be very easy for farmers to convert to MJ (plus we can stop buying them out with tax money). A ton of money would be above-board, and everyone would be happy. I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

  68. Another thought:

    At the risk of sounding like a protectionist, wouldn’t drug legalization reduce the trade deficit? Although part of the reason for buying drugs from overseas is related to growing conditions and cheap labor, part of it is related to the weakness of the governments in the Andes and Central Asia, making it easier to grow coca and opium there without being caught. There’s at least a half-way decent chance that some of the production activity would shift to the US if drugs were legalized.

    Even if I’m wrong, and no drug production was shifted to the US in the wake of legalization, at least we’d be sending less money overseas to buy the drugs. I’m no protectionist, but if a freer market means that more money is spent in the US rather than sent abroad, that seems like a good thing for us.

  69. I just noticed this weekend a sign advertising cigaretts “on sale” for $5 a pack. I couldn’t fucking believe it. I first got mad because 80% of that is taxes.

    But then I thought..

    One pack of quality chronic joints would be an absolute steal at $5, $6, hell, even $10 given today’s black-market prices, plus the added benefit of not worrying about your life being destroyed by arrests/convictions/jail. The guvmint could tax the living hell out of MJ and libertarian heads like me would consider ourselves lucky.

    Since the infrastructure is already there to grow tobacco, it would be very easy for farmers to convert to MJ (plus we can stop buying them out with tax money). A ton of money would be above-board, and everyone would be happy. I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

  70. Mr. Nice Guy,
    Who got the states to hijack the lottery trade?
    Maybe you should be in touch with them?

  71. thoreau 9:50 PM, and Ruthless 9:52, we are in complete agreement.

  72. Think of drugs as a surrogate for weapons. How are they getting in? If we are seriously looking for weapons, it stands to reason that we might find some drugs. But I don’t see drug addicts in the streets looking for their drugs, I assume that there is no problem with supply. WAKE UP! We are (CIA) directly involved in the import of drugs. The CIA uses the money to fund “off the books” programs, as well as create strategic impact in foreign governments.

  73. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. It had bewildered my how there could be, among the -dismayingly legion- supporters of our 43rd president, so little concern or embarrassment for Mr. Bush?s remedial prose and evisceration of the English language. Now, after scrolling through the illuminating, if unilluminated, comments taking to task Lewis Lapham as a fraud, a huckster, or worse, it all makes perfect sense. Supporters, defenders, and apologists for the hero of the Alabama Air National Guard seem, if this message board is any indication, to be afflicted similarly to W. in their aggressive ignorance. Shh?I?ll let you in on a sneaky writing trick Mr. Lapham employed. When he writes, ?The principles of freedom are ?archaic and bizarre?? Lapham doesn?t mean he thinks that. He?s using a rhetorical device ? irony ? to make his point. (Admittedly, he is writing for those who have completed successfully an education advanced beyond the primary degree.) I?m going to make you figure out for yourselves what the point is he makes, though. I can?t do all the work for you; that would be the intellectual equivalent of welfare.

    Curious, isn?t it, how our sub-literate president is most vigorously defended by our sub-literate segment of the population.

  74. looker, are you kaptinemo coming back in here with a new moniker and new cockamamie economic theory?

  75. No, I don’t pull stunts like that…and as far as ‘cockamamie’ is concerned, the figures came from DEA sources quoted on the PBS program Frontline @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/

    They may be fundamentally incapable of seeing the forest for the trees regarding the DrugWar, but one thing DEA has a nose for is money. Argue with them if you wish as to the exact amount, but as has been stated, it’s no trifling bit.

    Finally, you will please note that I have refrained from casting aspersions on other people’s ideas. Such reciprocal maturity would be greatly appreciated.

  76. Like Thoreau said:
    Only Nixon can go to China.
    Ain’t gonna be no Legalized Marijuana until
    the Republicans say it’s OK.
    So everybody who’s serious about legalizing weed
    needs to join the Republican party.
    If the Democrats wanted to end the
    “War On Drugs” I’d vote for ’em.
    But they don’t.
    The Democrats would’ve left Saddam in power and eliminated marijuana.
    If they could have.
    But the Republicans GOT RID OF Saddam, and would like to eliminate marijuana, if they could.
    So: which party is the lesser of 2 evils?

  77. kaptinemo has a legit claim, but this really goes along the lines of asset forfeiture and a self-funding agency rather than “money supply”. If you legalize the drugs you don’t need the DEA so there’s no need to fund it and therefore no need to print more money to fund it.

    The only way kaptinemo’s scenario takes place is if drugs are legalized and the DEA isn’t dismantled. Which, come to think of it, sounds like the government! Gotta keep those federal jobs a-pumpin’!

  78. The other motivation, Joe, is that speech should be free and unfettered… including commercial speech. How hypocritical would it be for Reason to reject the advertising of potential sponsor because the message diverged from the publication’s philosophy?

    Not even a tiny bit hypocritical.

  79. Osama bin Loaded has kidnapped my persona in nearby posts, but I have no complaints.
    Thanks for the ride!

    The honest-to-goodness aspersion caster with a dose of the vapors.

  80. “I’d also observe that a black market is springing up for untaxed cigarettes, suggesting that tobacco taxes should be lower.”

    If the guvmint legalized drugs (at least MJ) then it would have a much larger “sin” base to spread out the taxes. My guess is that the guvmint would make shitloads more cash off of recreational drug taxes then asset seizures (legit or otherwise). What are they thinking?!?

  81. NEMO: How much would you be willing to pay for legal weed? As much as you are paying now? I doubt it.

    S: Sorry, but our surveys demonstrate that current marijuana users would be thrilled to pay current prices if they knew the current threat of arrest and imprisonment was removed.

    Of course, prices would likely drop. As MRNICEGUY noted, the actual ‘cost’ to produce and distribute packaged doobies would be little different than that for tobacco.

    Using current illegal-market prices here in Florida I can tell you that a ‘pack’ of 20 marijuana cigarettes costs between $100-150 for good midgrade, unrolled weed. That’s a lot of room between $8 a pack and $150 for a lot of legal market steps to be inserted, including hefty taxes if that will help convert some of those currently addicted to the revenues which Prohibition creates.

  82. With regards to the huge amount of money being laundered, it’s rather obvious that the self-proclaimed ‘paragons of virtue’ (prohibitionists) and the ‘evildoers’ (dealers) are joined Siamese-Twin fashion at the wallet.

    Many DEA agents know that the moment presently illicit drugs become legal once more, a massive depression could hit the economy. The estimates are as much as a third of all US currency flowing through banks originates from illegal drug transactions. Remove that, suddenly, with no buffer to cushion the shock, and many banks would fold, with a disastrous domino effect taking place due to all the poorly secured loans having to be called in. Just as civilization runs on oil, commerce runs on banking.

    The Savings & Loan crises of the 1980’s showed that the government’s much vaunted promise of protecting depositors was an empty one, as the taxpayers will be paying for that largely forgotten pre-ENRON disaster for the next two generations. And that was just to take care of those with money in S&L’s; what do you think would happen with banks? Especially in these very dangerous economic times?

    What I’m afraid of is that the Guv’mint will only decrim/legalize after so much damage has been done to society by maintaining the present regime that by comparison – in their minds, at least – it won’t make any difference; we’ll all be in the poorhouse by then.

  83. kaptinemo,
    I barely made it thru Econ 101, but I can’t buy your doomsday scenario for the banks.
    You must be factoring in too many multipliers.

  84. What I was trying to get at is this: the banks are as dependent now upon dirty money as any ‘horse’ junkie is on his fix. And the US Guv’mint knows that. The loans made to local businesses and individuals are based in large part on that dirty money. Imagine what happens when that dirty money disappears…suddenly. Just like that junkie, the system goes into a withdrawal shock.

    Less money for loans. Less economic growth. Smaller banks must either petition the Fed to increase the money supply (causing runaway inflation) or call in the security on the loans, causing widespread hardship to individual and corporate borrowers. In either case, most small banks are over-extended loan-wise and can’t make up the difference…especially when citizens start getting antsy about the economy and try to get their money out, often called a ‘bank run’. No small bank (and few large ones!) can afford that.

    The effects of this would result in many banks folding as a result of that easily flowing currency suddenly being cut back to 2/3rds of what it once was.

    So, when drug law reformers talk about the ‘vested interest’ that both prohibitionists and dealers have in common in maintaining prohibition, it goes deeper than the obvious level of Law enforcement paychecks and dealer stashes. Just as the trade itself, the fallout from suddenly depreciated goods and the deflated currency they provide resulting from relegalization will be international in scope. A classic ‘riding the tiger’ scenario if ever there was one. Get down off of it, and it may eat you.

  85. Prohibition is the only thing protecting drug dealers from the toughest competitors of all: Big corporations that would corner the market in no time.

    Let’s not forget that big corporations already benefit from the existing drug war.

    Legalizing, rather than merely decriminalizing, essentially means the end of prescription-only medication. This doesn’t mean the end of the FDA or FTC, all it means is that you wouldn’t need a note from your doctor to go buy some Valium. This would probably affect the way insurance companies cover the cost of medication, as you can tell from all the bitching about Claritin going OTC.

    An occasional drug going OTC doesn’t affect companies very much. But lots of people go to the doctor simply because they can’t get drugs any other way, not to abuse them but just to get them. Eliminating these trips to the doctor would probably affect the demand for doctors and insurance, so what I’m saying is the big drug companies would be the benefactors of legalization and insurance companies would be the big losers. (How many health insurance companies are going out of business now, hmm?)

    Let’s also not forget that most drugs aren’t cures, they are intended only to treat symptoms. It’s almost ironic that bio-tech is the closest thing to actually creating cures, and its the thing a certian segment would like to outlaw entirely. If a stem-cell procedure could cure arthritis, you’d see the pain reliever market shrink. And who the hell would ever go for more stem-cell procedures just for snicks? It’s not like we have a huge epidemic of plastic surgery.

    You could still make an argument that things like antibiotics need to be prescption-only because widespread use would reduce the effectiveness. And there’s no reason people can’t consult their doctors and pharmacists before taking OTC medications.

    And as usual I have to take umbrage with a comment from joe. “If a government employee actually managed to solve a problem as big as drug abuse, he would be lauded as one of the greatest heros our country has ever produced. He’s get promotion after promotion, every elected official in America would want to shake his hand in front of cameras, and he’s end up getting both parties’ nomination for President.”

    This is complete denial of reality. How many times do you see stories of “turnaround experts”, aka magicians, being hired because they turned around ONE failing company, and their next promotion turns out to be a failure. People may want to believe someone has a magic touch, but the history of the world shows only evidence to the contrary. There are only two ways to cash in on solving problems: self-promotion (public speaking, taking new jobs before the Peter Principle catches you) or thinking up new phony problems to solve. Because that’s what the War On Drugs is, a solution to a non-problem.

  86. jc and kaptinemo,
    You’re poo-poohing our simple fight to stop demonizing drugs.
    It is as insane as when animals were put on trial.

    Legalize all… all drugs, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not afraid.

  87. That “dirty money” post doesn’t hold water. The fed’s job is to launder money. If every counterfeit bill is merely replaced with a “legit” one, the money supply is increased anyway and the bad loans are covered up. This has nothing to do with the legality of the drug trade and everything to do with bad loans and counterfeit. At worst, the drug traffickers are merely reducing the bank’s need to do it’s own counterfeiting to cover its bad loans.

    If “dirty money” meant something else in the post, then it meant something in regards to morals which has nothing to do with the money supply.

  88. Kudos to Ethan Nadelman on his speech on Sunday, well done.

    Yes, that was an awesome speech. I was right in front of him. You know when he shouted “Methamphetamine is a terrible drug” and someone shouted “No, it’s not!” and then he said “Ok, maybe Methamphetamine is a great drug…. Maybe it’s not, I’m not sure.” (Something to that effect)

    I was the guy shouting. 🙂

    Methamphetamines, amphetamines in general, are fine substances. For the overwhelming majority of users (as with most drugs), destructive patterns of use are non-existent. The thing that makes meth troublesome, just like with most other “hard” drugs, is mainly the massive amount of street and popular lore that if you use them, you’ll become hopelessly addicted.

    It’s just not true.

    When that attitude changes, we can sell methamphetamine to anyone [adult], anywhere, without fear of harm to society.

    People must know that choice never goes away, no matter what drug.

    In addition, NA/AA/NARC-ANON cults have to be exposed for what they are: An organization which seeks to disempower the individual user, and rely on a suspiciously collective “higher power.” When I realized what these groups were really saying, it was horrifying.

    It can, will, and does ruin lives. It takes regular people and forces them to accept the “drug addict” stereotype, reinforcing all the wrong emotions.

    I want to create and see serious promotion of responsibility and a mass reminder of the constant freedom to choose (to use or not to use; to use a little, to use a lot), despite your drug. Stop letting the promotion of powerlessness ruin lives.

    Millions of people, living happy, productive lives, use amphetamines and methamphetamine (Desoxyn), often daily, for medical purposes without harm, and with an abundance of positive results. Millions more do the same for, what you might call “less than entirely medical” reasons. For starters, I suggest some inquiry into the connection between amphetamines and the [very existence of] jazz.

    Most of those people that can be verified as “true” addicts suffer from mild or serious, pre-existing, psychological issues, albeit often exacerbated by reckless stimulant use. Not vice versa.

    Addiction? I consider that a worthless, stigmatized and archaic term. Far more often than not, in the case of “certified addicts,” we’re dealing with people who simply seek self-medication…. and they shouldn’t be denied.

    There should be some experimentation in this area with a stimulant based maintenance program (for stimulant abusers wishing to quit properly or stabilize their use), where appropriate. These programs, which would be somewhat similar to the heroin and methadone maintenance programs in Europe (minus the government monoply on them, hopefully). When ran properly, these programs have higher success rates than any other kind of treatment program in existence. Any.

    For said maintainance, I suggest looking into methylphenidate (Ritalin) or its D isomer, dextromethylpenidate (Focalin), as very good potential first line candidates. Modanifil and Effexor also strike me as promising in this area of treatment.

    Well, anyway, in the future, let’s not slag other drugs in the hopes of defending another, anymore. For the majority, responsible drug use is easier than even dieting. Some know this, most don’t; That has to change. The only way drug legalization could fail should it become an actuality is if this is not fully understood and ingrained into the public mind. It would/will/does make a powerful first step for legalization. It provides the first rays of light at the end of the prohibition tunnel.

  89. Somnitek:

    I am somewhat sympathetic to what you say, but I personally draw the line with drugs that can cause great harm or even kill you if you take too much, just by use alone. (The sick irony here is that alcohol is legal, yet is technically a poison).

    The worst thing that can happen if you smoke too much weed is that you get a headache. I’m not aware of any fatalities caused by other psychedelics, either (except for those kids in the 60s who burned their eyes out looking at the sun after dropping those purple dragons 😉 ).

    I think us only pushing the legalization of “soft drugs” is the appropriate middle-road, and much more likely to succeed.

  90. Mr. Nice Guy,
    I think what somnitek is saying is, fine, you personally, draw your lines, but letting government draw lines is precisely the problem we’re trying to address here.
    We own our bodies. Government doesn’t.

  91. Ruthless: “We own our bodies. Government doesn’t.”

    Well said, and I totally agree. However, the definition of government is to “draw the lines”.

    The government, while it still exists, will always have some hold over us. I just want it to loosen the grip a little bit (legalization of soft drugs). Even if it only goes that far in the recreational drug “struggle”, it would be a much better world then it is now.

    If we stubbornly hold to the “all or nothing” stance, no matter how much we personally believe in it, we have no realistic chance of winning.

  92. MRNICEGUY, you make good points, but I would invite you to eliminate the terms ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ drugs from your rap, since the real definer for both is how they are used.

    With the exception of injection opiates (heroin), most all drugs are ‘soft’ until they are used excessively and/or not according to direction.

    ALL DRUGS, with the exception of the herb cannabis, can kill when used to excess.

    SOMINTEK correctly notes that millions of Americans responsibly use amphetamines without adverse incident. If more access was granted for lower-impact amphetamines, there would be no demand for bathtub manufactured products.

    ANY IN-DEMAND substance which is criminally prohibited will lead to the creation of a criminal market.

    Drugs and their effects are a serious and important issue in our world today. But whatever level of risk or danger you associate with a specific drug is instantly exacerbated when you attach a criminal marketplace and dealers who are totally unregulated.

    We didn’t repeal alcohol Prohibition because we thought it would make alcohol use ‘safer’, or because we hoped that alcohol abuse would diminish. We did it to put Al Capone and his cohorts out of business. Once the criminal element has been removed, we can better deal with the very real problems related to drug use and/or AB-use.

  93. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  94. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  95. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  96. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  97. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  98. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  99. like man, I don’t NEED no acid

    an…. I don’t NEED no downers

    cause….. I get LOW on life

  100. CHUNK, CHUNK, MUNKA CHUNK

    MUNKY MUNKY CHUNK

    FUNK, FUNK, FUNKA WUNK

    CHUNKY, CHUNKY, MUNK

    PTHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WHERE YA’LL BE, SEARCHIN FER YER GERM CELLZ?

    MUNK MUNK!!!

  101. CHUNK, CHUNK, MUNKA CHUNK

    MUNKY MUNKY CHUNK

    FUNK, FUNK, FUNKA WUNK

    CHUNKY, CHUNKY, MUNK

    PTHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WHERE YA’LL BE, SEARCHIN FER YER GERM CELLZ?

    MUNK MUNK!!!

  102. CHUNK, CHUNK, MUNKA CHUNK

    MUNKY MUNKY CHUNK

    FUNK, FUNK, FUNKA WUNK

    CHUNKY, CHUNKY, MUNK

    PTHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WHERE YA’LL BE, SEARCHIN FER YER GERM CELLZ?

    MUNK MUNK!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.