Drug War

The Democratic Way of Prohibition

How the party of pot smokers ended up standing in the way of pharmacological freedom

|

The most illuminating ride-along I've ever gone on was a three-hour bus tour of South Los Angeles with City Councilman Bernard Parks, who represents the area that before two deadly riots was known as South-Central L.A. and Watts.

Parks is not exactly my favorite public official. He draws a combined taxpayer-funded salary/pension of more than $400,000 a year, and as L.A.'s police chief in the 1990s he stonewalled corruption probes while alienating good officers with petty penalties for minor internal violations. But Parks is far more willing than his colleagues on the city council to deviate from the local Democratic consensus on issues from rent control to eminent domain. Above all, he's a blunt-spoken fellow, providing a rare warts-and-all glimpse into a certain governing mind-set.

On this day in 2007, cruising down the boulevards near the epicenter of the riots that followed the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King, Parks' mind was on the kinds of establishments he was sick of seeing in his neighborhoods. "Auto-related business, auto-related business, fried chicken restaurant, liquor store, fast-food restaurant," he and his top aides would say, pointing out the window as we passed them by. If only those Del Tacos could be replaced by sit-down family restaurants, those used-tire lots by Whole Foods outlets, the area could finally begin making an economic comeback.

Parks' solution: Ban the "blight." As a first step, by a unanimous vote in the summer of 2008, the L.A. City Council prohibited the construction or expansion of fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. You could still build a McDonald's in nearby (and more prosperous) Lakewood. But creating burger-flipping opportunities near Florence and Normandie was deemed bad for the neighborhood.

It's important to point out that the political class supporting the fast food moratorium does not, as a rule, dislike poor minorities. Parks is black, the mayor of L.A. is Latino, and community activists in favor of the ban actually used the phrase "food apartheid" to describe the state of affairs before mostly white central planners zoned away consumer choice for half a million mostly nonwhite residents. They genuinely believe that punishing some of the few businesses willing to serve troubled neighborhoods is a necessary precondition to bringing in the commercial chains they prefer, such as Trader Joe's, Mimi's, or Starbucks (though never Walmart).

Two pathologies stand out here. One is the belief that prosperity is sourced at the stroke of a government pen, whether it's prohibiting one type of commerce or doling out favors to another. In my years of observing L.A. politics, the only government official I recall ever making the argument that good things can happen if you limit rather than expand government interference was 1990s Republican Mayor Richard Riordan, and he was apt to lard that talk with new subsidy schemes for preferred industries. For his efforts Riordan was commonly portrayed by a mostly hostile press and city council as just a few stages of evolution removed from a Nazi. When the New Left icon Tom Hayden ran against him for mayor in 1997, one of his campaign slogans was "Riordan is a racist."

The second pathology is the disconnect between political in-group identity and the real-world impact of policies. Activists who have singled out L.A.'s historic black neighborhood for a fried chicken ban are motivated by a desire to combat racism, strange as that may look on first and second glance. When those Whole Foods outlets turn out to be just as unattainable as a local economic rebound, there won't be a moment's re-evaluation. They will still be flattering themselves for fighting racists, still trying to prohibit their way to prosperity.

With this backdrop, it is no accident that Los Angeles has become the nation's capital for both commercial marijuana and the bewilderingly herky-jerky efforts to rein it in, the subject of this month's cover story and of a recent video at reason.tv (reason.tv/potwars). The article and the video both illustrate, to dizzying effect, how a political culture in which nearly every relevant player agrees that Californians should be allowed to use marijuana as medicine without fear of arrest can lead to business-shuttering regulations and violent police raids. Call it the Democratic way of prohibition.

Here we have an extremely Democratic city in a strongly Democratic state, where the population at this point favors outright legalization of marijuana, plus a Democratic president whose Justice Department has said it will stop prosecuting people for growing, supplying, or possessing medical marijuana as long as they are complying with state law. How in the world can this combination lead to a fresh crackdown?

Easily. Too many Californians believe that your personal freedom ends once you walk out your front door (or more accurately, the front door of your apartment, since the political class is forever coming up with new restrictions on what owners can do with their houses and businesses). Economic freedoms are treated with outright suspicion, particularly if they are not somehow managed by a local governing authority.

Two details in Brian Doherty's article illustrate the point. Anti-dispensary activist Michael Larsen—who supports medical marijuana, naturally—talks about restricting its sale in his neighborhood the same way he talks about zoning away auto repair shops. Eat your heart out, Bernard Parks! And when Doherty asks supporters of the crackdown why the medical marijuana business has to be regulated, they typically explain that before, "it was unregulated."

Freedom can be a terrifying thing, especially when it's exercised by other people. One of the prohibitionist's most effective tactics is to portray people who enjoy the activity he wants to ban as dangerous degenerates. Popular activities or personal pastimes that seem inscrutable from the outside often elicit the kind of anxious suspicion described in a song by the famous Angeleno Tom Waits: "What's he building in there?"

But by bringing pot into the open, L.A.'s helter-skelter experimentation with limited medical marijuana freedom may ultimately foster tolerance far beyond the field of pain relief. When pot was strictly in the shadows, it was possible to maintain with some plausibility that legalizing the stuff would lead to widespread addiction, community-wide torpor, and dodgy dealers preying on gullible teens. But we now have several years of data to the contrary. There's a dispensary every other block in some neighborhoods, and the social fabric is not yet torn.

Like the gay marriage debate, which changed irrevocably once America saw two sweet grandmother-aged ladies kissing and crying on San Francisco's courthouse steps, semi-legalization in California has put the lie to pot demonization and emboldened people to say out loud what most have known all along: It's just a plant that makes you giggle and eat junk food. It's nothing to get hung up about, let alone a reason to continue waging a drug war that has ruined so many lives and eroded so many freedoms.

The near future of Democratic prohibition, which will be playing out in medical marijuana states from coast to coast, is hard to predict. Hostility toward economic freedom is pervasive, and one can only hope that people will begin noticing that you can't truly have personal freedom until you can buy and sell what you want, too.

But as with gay marriage, the long view is clear: We will have freedom, unapologetic freedom, in our lifetimes. Future generations will look back at the details of this interim and scratch their heads, but they will recognize that from the cloud of L.A.'s pot confusion came the insight to finally, mercifully, legalize weed.  r

Matt Welch (matt.welch@reason.com) is editor in chief of reason.

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.

151 responses to “The Democratic Way of Prohibition

  1. That actualyl makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

    Lou
    http://www.anon-resources.at.tc

    1. Actually, Lou, he had me at “The”

      No thinking required.

  2. Ha! I’m first.

  3. Damn! I’m second.

    1. And third.

  4. You see, the anti-pot forces have already moved to the junk food arena. Without Funions, they surmise, all of this pot smoking stuff will die a hasty death.

  5. Activists who have singled out L.A.’s historic black neighborhood for a fried chicken ban are motivated by a desire to combat racism, strange as that may look on first and second glance.

    They ban strawberry soda and watermelons too?

    1. Grape drink fool.

          1. Gimme some red mamma!

  6. It’s important to point out that the political class supporting the fast food moratorium does not, as a rule, dislike poor minorities.

    Yes, it’s important to lie.

    1. Since, I tell myself that libertarian policies must be good for minorities and that ‘the liberals’ are are trying to enslave them (they should vote republican!)they must be self-hating!

    2. Yes, it’s important to lie.

      The liberals aren’t lying. They love poor people. All their policies are designed to create more of them.

  7. They ban strawberry soda and watermelons too?

    And purple drank?

    Fuck all the nannies, yo.

    1. A little more scrolling and I wouldn’t have missed this.

      1. Grape drank is too obvious, w/o the timeless trueness of watermelon. Try finding a strawberry Nehi or Fanta in a white neighborhood sometime.

        1. Tropical Fantasy?

  8. Those who support the initiation of force to get their way are fair game under the libertarian principle of non-agression.

  9. They genuinely believe that punishing some of the few businesses willing to serve troubled neighborhoods is a necessary precondition to bringing in the commercial chains they prefer

    Sounds like they better ban malt liquor in their own neighborhoods.

  10. “Auto-related business, auto-related business, fried chicken restaurant, liquor store, fast-food restaurant,”

    I remember reading this before. Did you write up this ride along previously Matt? Link?

    1. Blog post somewhere here.

    2. I’ve been reading “The Mystery of Capital,” which makes a good point that for centuries the elites have seen the condition of the slums and assumed that the slums themselves, and the activities that occur there as CAUSING poverty. In reality, slums, as well as low income districts in the US, represent a marginalized people achieving a level of productivity and wealth in the face of marginalization. Slums in the third world aren’t wealth defeating, they are wealth creating. It is the system, licensing and permit laws, as well as zoning laws in many countries, that force a desperate people to produce value in any way that they can. Seeing Liquor stores and KFC as socially bad is simply an extension of this elitist concept of wealth production.

      To me it is all just symbolic. What difference does it make that the business down the street is a wal mart or a starbucks? The real issue, to me, is whether or not people are happy and getting what they want. Some might argue that wal mart doesn’t make people happy, but that would beg the question, WHY DO THEY SHOP THERE!?!?!?? It’s really all aesthetics. Sadly, the aesthetic opinions of the elite class will always trample the freedom and wealth creation of the poor.

      1. I wish I could go into more detail of the subject of the book, because it all fits perfectly with this issue. These Democratic busy bodies are destroying real wealth while claiming to help “the people.”

        1. Well. Duh.

  11. Where the fuck are my Zig-Zags, and my lighter, so I can roll it and set it on fire?

  12. Liberals don’t make sense. California doesn’t make sense. California Liberals are just beyond description.

  13. These people have failed to see any link between economic freedom and personal freedom for generations. I see no reason to believe that will change.

    1. Look where we’ve gone on 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 4th hand smoke with cigarettes and tobacco.

      Imagine how fun it’s going to be with 2nd hand marijuana smoke. Wait until policymakers get wind (!) of the fact that someone could get intoxicated by merely being around marijuana smokers.

      Imagine if Oxycontin could get other people in the room high whenever you took a pill.

      Oh the levels of regulation will be deeeeelicious.

      1. Legalize and tax all pot. Cut $1.5 billion out of the ONDCP budget. Save $3 billion in pot interdiction and all related costs. Use the tax and $4.5 billion saved to save California. Put a pot shop on every corner but only us “Po-Folk” get the pot license. How is that for regulation?

  14. Freedom can be a terrifying thing, especially when it’s exercised by other people.

    This is the heart of it. And I do think there is subconscious racism involved, in that they think the darkies need to be controlled.

    1. What I have always found strange is the Subconscious racism practiced by members of that same race.

    2. No, it’s anti-racism. Here’s the way it works:

      They all want to deny that blacks have different tastes from whites. The preponderance of fried chicken therefore must be cast as an imposition by business on a local population that isn’t particularly interested in their product.

      To the contrary, I think that in some cases racial differences in taste are not just cultural, but genetic. It would make sense for blacks to have a greater desire for salty foods if, as it appears, their race came about in an environment that “selected” for sodium conservation.

      But to admit such a possibility would be to admit differences between races, therefore to deny such a possibility must mean that consumer sovereignty does not prevail in the absence of regulation, and that therefore restrictions on businesses are no great imposition after all.

      1. “Raaaaacist!!”

      2. Genetic?!!! What the f? Its cultural my friend. If you grew up on fried chicken and collard greens, you are going to continue liking it when you grow old and feed your children the same. It has nothing to do with genetic. I like plantains, baked chicken, rice and beans, because I am caribbean(and black), so that disprove your theory

        1. Hey, I like that stuff too! Does that make me Caribbean? And you are a cannuck too – where do you get your fix?

          In south Florida we have the McDonald’s of Caribbean food – Pollo Tropical. I’ve never lived anywhere where you could get decent Caribbean food at more than one or two little niche restaurants. Down here they have the whole market covered, from fast food to fine dining. Pretty sweet! Plus, it is nice to be able to get churrasco on the lunch menu for under ten bucks. Sweeet! Regretfully, other some other cuisines are not so well represented.

    3. And I do think there is subconscious racism involved, in that they think the darkies need to be controlled.

      It’s for their own good.

      They don’t know any better.

      They’ve been seduced by the capitalistic charlatans who have tricked them into eating KFC and buying auto parts.

      1. The worst type of paternalism. Black leaders are guilty of it. Its sickening

  15. Mr. Welch, you are merely preaching to the choir with this piece. To regular readers and proud loserdopians alike, the image of the freewheeling, loose morals liberal is at best a false caricature. We all know that the left is as hung up on their own ascetic lifestyle and self important sense of morality as the bible thumpers. But, hopefully,pieces like this will illuminate people to the false dichotomy between the two teams of nannies.

    1. I don’t think it’s a false caricature, it’s just that those same people are aghast at the Unwashed enjoying those same vices. It degrades the self-image of exclusivity.

      1. My experience with politically active liberals is where I’m coming from on this. I know that it is anecdotal and not empirical, but most liberals I have interacted with are pretty lame boring people, not the pot smoking, orgy having libertine image that they would have you to believe.

        1. agreed…they are lame…lots of them go to the church too…the lamest most wishy washy churches with the only reason for eactually existing being some sort of herd like need to bleeeh bleeh and feel bad about themselves for being human all together.

          1. The upshot is they are easy to entertain. With even the slightest violations of common herd behavior and cycnical explanations of other human behavior they will think you are edgy and interesting to talk to.

        2. Interesting – that’s my experience too. Also, conservatives tend to be closet freaks. And to back the two of us up, surveys tend to support the same conclusions. Strange that the public face should be so different.

  16. I need this sentence dumbed-down, please:

    “Parks is black, the mayor of L.A. is Latino, and community activists in favor of the ban actually used the phrase ‘food apartheid’ to describe the state of affairs before mostly white central planners zoned away consumer choice for half a million mostly nonwhite residents.”

    Seriously, what is that implying?

    1. I don’t know what he’s implying but I think he thinks we should be shocked(SHOCKED!!!) that control freak politicians who happen to be minorities would step all over their own people in the pursuit of power.

    2. I think he’s saying that racist progressives don’t think they’re racist because a) they are a minority or b) they call their opponents racist.

    3. It implies L.A. is a food desert.

      1. Oh, a desert. I thought you meant dessert.

      2. well it is the desert and there is food here.

    4. That LA politics is hopelessly fucked up, with race hustlers so thick on the ground that there is no hope of anything rational getting done.

    5. It’s important to point out that the political class supporting the fast food moratorium does not, as a rule, dislike poor minorities. Parks is black, the mayor of L.A. is Latino, and community activists in favor of the ban actually used the phrase ‘food apartheid’ to describe the state of affairs before mostly white central planners zoned away consumer choice for half a million mostly nonwhite residents.

      I think the implication is that these activists and non-white politicians believe that there is a racial reason why the food options in certain low income areas were limited to fast food and convenience/liquor stores.

      Rather than considering that maybe a grocery store isn’t opening up because the majority of the community just isn’t inclined to buy fresh / healthier foods, these pols/activists seem to think that there is some nefarious plot to keep low income folks malnourished or something.

      Although maybe that judgement is too harsh. Maybe they were using words like food-apartheid in a purposely sensationalist manner to highlight the situation rather than to try and place blame or describe the cause of why the community is dominated by FF and check cashing.

      But either way, their approach to combat this seems quite off. Banning the food places that are there isn’t going to guarantee that fresh /healthy food alternatives will take their place.

      It’s like some people just can’t believe that the reason why a grocer isn’t opening up in certain places is because it just isn’t profitable or the community just wont support it.

    6. We got to get those damn pot licenses before the stupid “Political Lemmings” get wind of it. Pot shop on every corner, KFC and BBQ and all the rest will flood in and the hood will be rich and eventually own most of California.

  17. Two marijuana pieces in one day and me without a bowl. Damn you Reason, DAMN YOU! (not really) ((well not the damn you part anyway))

  18. Wow Matt was really gushing in the final paragraph. I want some of whatever he is on.

    1. It’s called F2 but it costs a lot more than pot and looks wierd. Don’t know the formula for making the stuff yet but with the internet I can find anything if it exists.

  19. Is there any recent vote by a legislature on a pot issue in which the Dems did not have a higher % on the pro-freedom side than the GOP?

    1. Is there a point hiding somewhere in there.

      1. +2

    2. Is there any recent vote by a legislature on a pot issue in which the Dems did not have a higher % on the pro-freedom side than the GOP?

      No, that’s why we don’t vote GOP.

      1. On this issue Dems > Gop

        1. That’s like saying, “When it comes to fiscal responsibility Gop>Dems”.

          1. I actually think that is true too…

            1. It is technically, by the fact that the republicans will only overspend by $800,000,000,000 to the democrats $1,000,000,000,000.

          2. a k a “damning with faint praise.”

    3. Is there any recent vote by a legislature on a pot issue in which the Dems did not have a higher % on the pro-freedom side than the GOP?

      Is there any such vote where the freedom the Democrats voted for actually eased the restrictions on using pot?

  20. Matt Welch writes:

    But Parks is far more willing than his colleagues on the city council to deviate from the local Democratic consensus on issues from rent control to eminent domain.

    Then Matt writes:

    Parks’ solution: Ban the “blight.” As a first step, by a unanimous vote in the summer of 2008, the L.A. City Council prohibited the construction or expansion of fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. You could still build a McDonald’s in nearby (and more prosperous) Lakewood. But creating burger-flipping opportunities near Florence and Normandie was deemed bad for the neighborhood.

    So, where does he deviate from local Democratic concensus?

    1. Rent control and eminent domain, to (re)name two.

      1. No, I got that, Matt. But surrounded by all the other epic failures, these seem like just details in a sea of real problems.

        I mean, without researching his particular stand on eminent domain, the paragraph I quoted is like an anti-freedom solution to an anti-freedom problem. Clearly, he still believes generally in the democratization of property rights– the core philosophy that begets the progressive support for Eminent Domain. He’s just applying a draconian zoning solution so the properties will serve a ‘public purpose’.

  21. Here we have an extremely Democratic city in a strongly Democratic state, where the population at this point favors outright legalization of marijuana, plus a Democratic president whose Justice Department has said it will stop prosecuting people for growing, supplying, or possessing medical marijuana as long as they are complying with state law. How in the world can this combination lead to a fresh crackdown?

    Because screaming “Regulate us! Tax us! Set us free!” is exactly the wrong way to go when you want something legalized. Full. Fucking. Stop.

  22. When pot was strictly in the shadows, it was possible to maintain with some plausibility that legalizing the stuff would lead to widespread addiction, community-wide torpor, and dodgy dealers preying on gullible teens.

    Right, like cigarettes and tobacco……… oh wait.

    1. I mean, come on. We’ve just been through more than a decade of politicians declaring that cigarettes, a “legal product” lead to:

      Widespread addiction (no explanation needed)
      Community-wide torpor (negative health effects, 2nd hand smoke, 3rd hand smoke)
      Dodgy dealers preying on gullible teens (tobacco companies acting like drug pushers, making stealth ads tailored for young smokers-to-be.)

  23. Future generations will look back at the details of this interim and scratch their heads, but they will recognize that from the cloud of L.A.’s pot confusion came the insight to finally, mercifully, legalize weed.

    Probably with a prescription. And your fingerprints and personal data will have to be on file when you purchase it at Rite-Aid. Pill form only. No smoking with 20′ of an entrance or any public park. Register at the desk. Licenses to own may be obtained between 2:45 and 3:15 on Tuesday afternoon at the County Courthouse. No parking on weekdays. No loitering in common areas. Public property, keep out. No children under 21 allowed. Stand behind the yellow line. Obtain your special floral print Ducts at the office of Central Services. Obtaining private care is strictly forbidden. No cameras, mp3 players or cell phones, including hands-free. HOV lane only, 2+ occupats required. Speed limits are monitored by remote cameras. .02 blood alcohol limit. Parks pass required for all vehicles entering the area. Violators will be prosecuted.

    1. Are you mocking the “land of the free?”

      GOOD!!!!

  24. Great story–best job of discussing the clash of economic freedom and government tyranny (w/ a small “t”)

  25. This isn’t all bad. This policy is a step away from what the most advanced thinkers on libertarian issues…libertarian paternalism…just use the zoning rules to “nudge” the unthinking masses into making healthier choices. A real libertarian case can be made that this really does leave us all better off annd healthier…and doesn’t that improve utility?

    1. Fuck utility.

  26. California: Fruits, nuts, pot, and COGNITIVE DISSIDENCE (yeahhhh, rockin’ the ACT verbal).

  27. I support decriminalization, dude,
    But I ain’t no damn Marxist cock sucker.

    1. We don’t need that kind of uncouth language on this forum, brother man. Please yourself and vote for me and my Marxist FUPA patrol…

  28. Nazi Pelosi is a “nice person” according to Oklahomersexual “Senator” “Coburn”…

    Beat back the bigots, 2012!

  29. There is nothing sexy about smoking tweeds legally. This is a flippin’ outrage brah.

  30. Soon you Capitalist pigs will know true utopian paradise thanks to your fearless “guest lecturer”, Comrade O’Barry, peace be upon him. Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was right, suckas!

  31. Legalize drugs and prostitution. I need a fucking job in Obamastan!

  32. This Texan goat roper is fine and dandy with you hippies smoking your patchouli stank nugs, its easier for me to steal your women when your stoned. Charles Darwin is a biatch, bro.

    1. You people are freakin’, mad!

      1. .

  33. speaking of fruitcakes, how about the government? Your tax dollars at work. “We lost our Martian rocket ship” the high priced spokesman said. Looks like that silly rocket ship has lost its cone shaped head. We spend 90 jillian dollars trying to get a look a Mars. I hear universal laughter from out among the stars
    Vote Barry and his Merry Band of Thieves Out!

  34. I would like to give proper thanks where it is due. Without that syphilitic heap of Hungarian trash we would not have a Marxist in the White House and drugs would still be illegal in all 57 states, oh shit. Oh shit.

  35. I voted for Obama, because I wanted to prove to myself that I am not a racist white trash hillbilly. Now I am a slave in my own country and I beg you white trash honkies to save me from this Marxist nightmare. Let’s vote to get these people out out out out !!! OUT!!!!

    West Virginia
    Mountain Mama
    Take me home
    Country roads.

  36. Colorado.

  37. “We will bury you” (in Russian, “?? ??? ?????????!” (My vas pokhoronim!)). While many in the West took this statement as a literal threat, Khrushchev made the statement in a speech on peaceful coexistence with the West…

    You believe that, Comrades!

    1. How’d ya get the cyrillic in there, tovarisch? I’ve been trying for months?

    2. Actually, I think the Khrushchev statement to which he was referring was “your grandchildren will grow up under Communism”. Hey, it could happen.

    3. ??? ??? ????????, I have no idea what this is comrade, but the way I put this in was to pull up MS word, use the insert symbol function, and then cut and paste it here. You could do this with latin or greek figures as well. Now if someone could explain to me why when I try to insert a sub/super script with html on this site it disappears?

      Niketm …See there are
      < s u p >’s in there. Not with the spaces, but that is the only way I can get them to appear.

      1. Thanks for the tip Cap!

  38. Bring me some whiskey
    Drive these blues away
    Blues jumped the rabbit
    running with solid mind
    blues dropped the rabbit
    took the blues this morning
    cried just like a child \\

  39. Coincidence, I just watched a somewhat amusing L.A. pothead movie last night.

    There’s a pretty good chance marijuana will be legalized, the big question is how long the police and prison guard unions, treatment centers, judges and attorneys, and everyone else who has found themselves an easy way to enrich themselves pushing and enforcing the prohibition will let it go before they start pulling every under-handed trick they can think of to derail it.

    A friend in L.A. called while I was watching the movie, it reminded me to ask him what he thought, he listed a dozen or so past props we had voted on that passed both in his state California, and mine Arizona, and despite passing were just ignored or were somehow invalidated. He was right. So guess we’ll wait and see on this one. It could go either way.

    1. Yeah “somewhat amusing” is the perfect description for Smiley Face.

      1. I gave it 3 stars on netflix last week. A solid “meh.” John Krasinski on the title got my wife interested in it, only to have him spend like 10 minutes on screen.

  40. the fact that someone could get intoxicated by merely being around marijuana smokers

    Citation.

    Unless your point was that its about as realistic as the 5th-hand smoke kids were inhaling during Avatar 3D showings.

    1. Citation … given. Scroll down to Passive inhalation
      http://healthy.net/scr/article.aspx?Id=8085
      Not much, but the effect does exist.
      Then there’s this.
      http://www.erowid.org/plants/c…..nfo3.shtml

      If course i personally use this more to slam pro pot/anti tobacco hypocrites.

      1. ‘Of’ course, not ‘If’

  41. Because screaming “Regulate us! Tax us! Set us free!” is exactly the wrong way to go when you want something legalized. Full. Fucking. Stop.

    Oh, I disagree. There is no way on Earth that marijuana will ever be completely free of any and all legal standards. If you want legal trade and consumption of marijuana, you’re going to have to take a heaping helping of regulation and tax. Sad, but true.

    Regulated, taxed pot > illegal pot.

    1. Thank you RC. Is a tax- and regulation-heavy system perfect? No.

      Is it preferable to churning a quarter million people through the criminal justice system every year for holding minute quantities of a plant? Fuckin’ A right it is.

  42. The growers of pot themselves don’t even want it legalized because that would invite more competition and lower prices. These are the people that will work WITH the police unions to come in and provide testimony about how bad it would be to legalize.

    Whether you believe in the explicit conspiracy theory that the government is working for the cartels or shipping the drugs themselves with the CIA…or not. The government is implicitly WORKING for the drug cartels by keeping the barriers high, keeping prices high etc.

  43. Freedom for the bosses; slavery for everyone else. “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

  44. Even as we speak, an FDA panel is considering banning menthol in regular cigarettes on the grounds that allowing it is somehow racist. The reasoning goes like this: according to surveys (or so they Authorities say), blacks prefer menthol. Therefore allowing menthol to remain in cigarettes is a genocidal act. Depriving blacks of pleasure is a kindly move towards equality (treating the black smokers with the same kind of rotten paternalistic disdain as they’re treating the white smokers).

    It’s interesting that so many blacks remain Liberals.

  45. “Like the gay marriage debate, which changed irrevocably once America saw two sweet grandmother-aged ladies kissing and crying on San Francisco’s courthouse steps”

    I’m not sure what Matt’s talking about. Support for gay marriage has decreased in recent years.

  46. How the party that used to distrust authority became the party that demands fealty to authority, now that they have it

    There, that’s better.

  47. A word of caution to Obama and his munchkins: One must be careful in politics, lest the toes stepped on, on one’s rise to the top, might be attached to the buttocks which one must kiss in one’s descent to the bottom. Ya’ll might want to practice that pucker between now and November.

    http://www.TeaPartyRevolution.com

    http://www.TeaPartyExpress.com

  48. For at least ten years, I’ve been trying to convince people that the only way to save LA is through carpet bombing the whole damned thing. Think of it like breast or testicular cancer. Sure, they’re a part of you, part of what makes you you, but eventually you have to cut them off anyway, or they’re just going to kill you. Remission is not an option.

  49. Great article but if he really thinks we’ll have unapologetic freedom in our lifetimes he is smoking something.

  50. bottle outside a bit outside of the assets of their lives. It is convenient for them Boutique Cheap Women Ugg Boots chestnut Arctic winter. That is to say Ugg Boots Outlet boots will be needed.

  51. We also access the comment made central identical analyze acclaimed name cast away ahead of the curve of Women Uggs . We will access the application for the precision Ugg Sheepskin Boots we are in the bazaar in both winter and summer. These auction access ugg been

  52. added details about the Ugg Sheepskin Boots , for example, apparently used the best Sheepskin Boots Sale boots accurately auction

  53. make use of an aggregate not far from the cleaner to a sponge, Cheap Womens Uggs and lightly abrade the absolute amplitude in tiny circles. For stubborn or hard to reach spots, try using the broom support – apart be careful not to abuse the materials. Bathe daily in the filter all collectively to another with their cold, wet cloth, non-stop for swimming and sand if you will. The achievements will grill aft of the Ugg Boots On Sale boots

  54. Because the administration of the affidavit of all equipment in the Classic Ugg Boots Online Store Boots Shorten, will charge a mild cleanser or cleaner natural that affidavit could be assertive with the highest absolute accuracy delicate added. And Ugg Boots Outlet need to adulterate your vacuum bubbler baptize according Arctic stop in the administration of the instructions

  55. But then after all of this debate and everything that went on, prop 19 didn’t go through. I knew of some sad people on that day, they really thought it was going to be the “green revolution”

  56. I tell myself that libertarian policies must be good for minorities and that ‘the liberals’ are are trying to enslave them

  57. I really like ray ban glasses.
    I think ray ban is the best.
    good quality ray ban sunglass.fashion design.lastest model.
    ray ban sunglass
    gossip gril fashion
    gossip gril style
    proenza schoulder
    http://www.letsluxury.net

  58. The legalization of marijuana requires uniformity at both federal and local levels. It is unfair to the populace to be vague about this. While cities are licensing dispensaries, the IRS is closing them down for not paying taxes based upon arcane laws created during the war on drugs. We need consistent action with federal tax laws. Blight is a perspective problem. Criminal prosecuation for performing a sanctioned community business is not.

  59. Changed irrevocably once America saw two sweet grandmother-aged ladies kissing and crying on San Francisco’s. | ran ??? |

  60. Good article, didnt realize they blocked themselves on the issue.

  61. Good article, didnt realize they blocked themselves on the issue. sbo | sbo

  62. Good article, didnt realize they blocked themselves on the issue. sbo | sbo

  63. Thank you very much for your work. 3m | ibcbet

  64. Thank you very much for your work livescore | winningft

  65. Thank you for your comments and good information. Useful to me.

  66. I tell myself that libertarian policies must be good for minorities and that ‘the liberals’ are are trying to enslave them

  67. Beer and wine kisumu 2 possess a small amount of methyl alcohol, also known as fuel line antifreeze along with cook oven fuel. It is just a harmless quantity in ale and wine beverage but when distilled atmbt sapatu the wrong temp a dangerous amount of methyl alchol can be done.

  68. ted business, fried chicken restaurant, liquor store, fast-food resta

  69. es for minor internal violations. But Parks is far more willing than his colleagues on the city council to deviate from the loca

  70. m does not, as a rule, dislike poor minorities. Parks is black, the mayor of L.A. is Latino, and community activists in fa

  71. hile alienating good officers with petty penalties for minor internal violations. But Parks is far more willing than his colleagues

  72. L.A.’s police chief in the 1990s he stonewalled corruption p

  73. -funded salary/pension of more than $400,000 a year, and as L.A.’s police chief in the 1990s he stonewalled corruption probes while alienating good officers with petty penalties f

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.