Drug Policy

Guess How Many Senators Opposed Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs

|

Here is a complete list of the senators who had the sense, honesty, and (sadly needed) courage to vote against the moronic Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act, which doubles penalties for people who sell controlled substances "combined with a candy product" and "marketed or packaged to appear similar to a candy product":

Yep, it passed the Senate yesterday by unanimous consent. The latest version (PDF) no longer includes adults (18-to-21-year-olds) in its definition of kids, and (as I noted on Wednesday) it requires that a drug be modified "with the intent to distribute, dispense, or sell" it to a minor. Although people who are deemed to have that intent will face the same sentence doubling as people who actually sell drugs to children, it's not clear how the intent would be proven. Is colorful packaging enough? Will anything that looks and/or tastes like candy be treated as ipso facto appealing to children? And is Firedoglake's Michael Whitney right to worry that the bill will be read as covering pot brownies sold by medical marijuana dispensaries as well as their cannabis candy bars? On one hand, brownies are baked goods, not candy. On the other hand, they contain chocolate, which is a kind of candy, and it is "combined with" the cannabis. Perhaps the crucial criterion will be the brownie's consistency: If it's caky, it's a baked good; if it's chewy, it's essentially fudge, which is candy. (If you think a drug offender's punishment couldn't possibly hinge on such an arbitrary distinction, recall that it took Congress more than two decades to address the equally senseless distinction between smoked and snorted cocaine—and even then, it shrank the gap instead of eliminating it.)

Already I have put more thought into this bill than its two chief sponsors, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), did. They still claim to be fighting the mythical menace of candy-flavored methamphetamine. Whitney argues that medical marijuana is Feinstein's real target, but I think that gives her too much credit.

[Thanks (again) to Joe Leibrandt for the tip.]

NEXT: Comic Operetta/Courtroom Drama About Raw Milk Debuts Today!

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. I would even dispute that chocolate is necessarily a candy. It’s used as a spice in Mexican cuisine (see: Mole sauce).

    1. Chocolate is absolutely not “candy”, just like strawberries aren’t “candy”. They’re ingredients, and can be ingredients in candy or an entree or whatever.

      Congress is retarded. Feinstein and Grassley are super-retarded.

    2. Using chocolate as a spice? Gross. No wonder Arizona tried to ban them from the premises.

      1. I just made a pork mole for the first time the other day — it was way better than I expected it would be.

        Hint: use unsweetened chocolate.

  2. SKFDDA? That doesn’t spell anything that tugs at my heartstrings. What happened to the cute legislative acronyms?

    1. I thought the same thing. So, I made up my own (painful)acronym:

      The PUPPY Act, Preventing Unscrupulous Persons from Poisoning our Youth Act.

      1. Who could vote against puppies? Cruel bastards, they.

  3. It always amazes me that the people authoring regulations, whether national or local, can’t see the that the devil is not in the details but in the interpretation. I had a chat wih a woman who authored a retaining wall ordinance and now that she was in private practice, she was dismayed at how the bureaucrats responsible for interpreting the ordinance were violating the intent of the people who created the ordinance. That’s the fucking norm not the exception people. Will it surprise me when they start coming for the brownies? Hell no.

  4. Charlie Leibrandt? He was a good pitcher, though I objected to Cox throwing him in the bullpen during the Series against the Twins.

    1. I object to everything Cox does in the postseason. I guarantee Lowe is #2 or 3. When he sucks, expect to hear “veteran presence” and “big game experience” ad nauseam. There’s never been a manager that manages the season so well and the game so horribly.

      And fuck the SKFDDA.

      1. Hear, hear. But I also partly blame Tom Glavine for the unemotional professional demeanor that cost us so many series. But he gets his due for the ’95 win.

  5. So why is party x preferable to party y again?

    1. Because partisans tell you so.

      1. The Democrats are better overall on allowing gambling, the Republicans are better on a variety of issues, such as free trade. On some issues they’re equally dumb.

        It’s as stupid to pretend that the parties are exactly the same on everything as it is to be a blind partisan. Plenty of people who feel strongly on one particular issue would have sufficient reason to prefer one party or the other. The likelihood of anyone really having a precise combination of opinions making the parties truly equal (as opposed to choosing a lesser of two equals) is infinitesimal.

        It is, OTOH, possible for people to simply not wish to bother to go to the trouble to be informed, though that makes them in one sense no better than blind partisans.

        1. “The likelihood of anyone really having a precise combination of opinions making the parties truly equal (as opposed to choosing a lesser of two equals) is infinitesimal.”

          Really? I have a feeling most Libertarians feel that way (maybe not about actual candidates, but about the parties in general)

          It isn’t stupid to “pretend” the parties are completely the same: they are in lockstep on 90% of what they do. And the things they usually argue about don’t matter

          1. It isn’t stupid to “pretend” the parties are completely the same: they are in lockstep on 90% of what they do. And the things they usually argue about don’t matter

            “completely the same” = “90% of what they do” = stupid

            I don’t claim to be an expert on libertarianism, but I’m pretty sure republicans did me a favor by opposing Obamacare and the stimulus, and a lot of them were against the bailouts… and cap and trade… and card check… I guess my priorities are messed up if that’s only 10%

            1. Well I completely disagree that they were against throwing a trillion or so borrowed dollars at “stimulus”, they just voted party lines because that’s what they do (hey, useful idiots are useful, not arguing there.)

              I also give them zero credit (at least as a party as a whole) for opposing the bailouts, because a sizable chunk of them supported the bailouts.

              So yeah, considering all the wars, the trying to set up a theocracy, the anti-free trade votes, the giant boner they have for the police state, and the fact that I know they’d never dare to remove mortgage subsidies (or most any subsidies for that matter) my agreement with the GOP is only about 10%.

            2. Perhaps, but the GOP is the reason we’ve flushed $2 Trillion down the rathole in Iraq and their management of the economy has led to the crisis we are in now. Face it, both major parties are out to lunch.

              1. GHWB DID IT

        2. Both parties favor giving the government more power to ban what they don’t like and require what they do. Neither party acknowledges that government will use the extra power to do things they disapprove of.

          So yeah, pretty much the same, pick the slightly lesser of two evils.

          As for single issues, I usually vote for the party/individual with the best gun rights record. But this time we seem to be getting more progress from the D administration than we did with the last R administration, so that’s problematic as well.

          1. huh? The Roberts court is not the Obama administration. They are in fact opposed on the gun rights issues – with the Obama administration firmly on the “not gun rights” side of things.

            1. In “Obama’s” Congress:

              A. Passed
              1. Carry in national parks
              2. Transport firearms on AMTRAK

              B. Still in play
              1. D.C. gun rights bill
              2. BATFE reform
              3. Firearms protected from bankruptcy creditors

              C. Almost passed
              1. National reciprocity

              D. Related
              1. NRA exclusion kills DISCLOSE act

              E. Headed off at the pass
              1. Democratic representatives’ letter against a new “assault weapons” ban
              2. The few gun control bills filed are going nowhere

              1. Note to LarryA. Republicans and voters retain some influence in congress.

          2. Larry, stop being bitter and clinging to your guns. You don’t need them, son, any more than you need those evil health insurance companies. We’ll take good care of you.

            1. I wouldn’t be as bitter if I had a job.

              I’ll thank you come November.

            2. If I don’t need those evil health insurance companies, then why is the IRS going to be forced to buy their product in 2014?

              1. Baby steps, sweetheart. We’ll nationalize them soon enough.

        3. Dems keep making gambling another government program.

    2. Because according to Tony, Libertarians need to work with the Dems, because they’re clearly so much better on civil rights and liberties. Despite not sacrificing one damn bit of political capital for them and being outright hostile in this instance.

  6. So why is party x preferable to party y again?

    One of them’s dad is rich.

    1. But the others mom is good lookin!

        1. So hush little baby, don’t…..you cry.

  7. Perhaps the crucial criterion will be the brownie’s consistency

    Fortunately they can consult the Mil-Std for that.

    1. So brick-hard is the only option?

  8. I would have proposed an amendment to limit the number of live unicorns that can be transported across state lines.

    1. How about one concerning raw milk from unicorns?

  9. Dude, no way man that is just WAY too cool dude.

    lou
    http://www.anonymous-surfing.es.tc

    1. Your not even trying anymore. I like you better when you care.

      1. Anon-bot’s AI quotient has plummeted over the last few weeks.

        1. Maybe it got nationalized?

    2. Actually it seems pretty appropriate for a pot post.

      1. Ya but I like him (it?) better when he rants and curses. Its happened before.

  10. At least the Senate is addressing a ridiculous problem with ridiculous legislation.

    1. +? as in infinity, damn spam filter

  11. FLINTSTONES’ CHEWABLE MORPHINE!

  12. Flintstones’ chewable morphine!

  13. (3) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any controlled substance that–
    (B) has been altered at the direction of a practitioner who is acting for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice.

    Maybe my reading comprehension isn’t what it should be but doesn’t this seem to indicate that “medical marijuana” would be exempt.

  14. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)= Juanita?

    1. Actually, Chuck, we thought Juanita was you in drag…

  15. We’re gonna roll back this war on drugs any day now. They’re on the ropes! Well, they’re in our living rooms, drinking our beer and sleeping with our wives, but they’re on the ropes too!

  16. i hope Cali legalizes Pot. i’d look forward to seeing what the feds will do.

  17. Chocolate is a drug. It was used by South American Indians as a remedy for diarrhea. It contains the alkaloids theobromine (why you shouldn’t give it to dogs or cats) and phenethylamine. Don’t let the dickhead senators know any of this though, or they’ll be one more thing they’ll outlaw.

    1. That post should have been at the top of the thread, with the chocolate discussion. I can’t blame threaded comments, It’s just too early in the morning.

    2. Irene at Hap’s: I don’t do drugs.
      Stanley: Caffeine’s a drug. Nicotine’s a drug.
      Irene at Hap’s: [annoyed] Who’s the towhead? Those drugs are LEGAL!

  18. I guessed right.

    Unfortunately.

  19. Wow, thats just dowright scary when you think about it.

    Lou
    http://www.real-privacy.at.tc

  20. Some guy I know used to buy blotter with a picture of Mickey Mouse on each tab. Amazingly enough, it wasn’t marketed on elementary school playgrounds.

    1. Ah yes, the old sorcer’s apprentice blotter. I knew some guy who had those too.

    2. Personally, I liked the Scooby Doo acid the best.

      1. Gooney bird or five star.

    3. The guy I knew bought Donald Duck blotter a couple times.

      Forget the cops, I’m surprised Disney’s copyright lawyers haven’t gone after these guys.

      1. Far more formidable antagonists, frankly.

  21. It is, OTOH, possible for people to simply not wish to bother to go to the trouble to be informed, though that makes them in one sense no better than blind partisans.

    Boo hoo.

    Alternatively, one might be sufficiently well-informed to see parties which, while differing in minor detail, are equally committed to imposing their moronic beliefs (and spiderweb of irrational fears) on me.

  22. Well, huh.

    Even some Democrats seemed to grow more uncomfortable with Mr. Rangel’s continued presence in the House. Since the charges were detailed, three Democratic members have called for him to step down, joining three members who had previously asked him to leave the House.

    “Too many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have fallen victim to the idea that they are ‘different’ than regular folks, and nothing could be further from the truth,” Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat of Arizona, said in a statement released on Friday.

    What heresy is this?

    1. Oh, she’s new. Give her another few terms and she’ll see the light.

    2. “…A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall,…”
      Wonder how Barney Frank is sleeping these days?
      I’d give you a link, but the Reason spam filter doesn’t like it.

  23. The tanking economy has left the public highly skeptical of Obama’s larger goal of restoring faith in government as an effective agent for reform and a necessary corrective to the excesses of free enterprise. Indeed, a CNN poll out today finds that a whopping 61% thinks the government is doing too much that should be left to private individuals and businesses.

    But today, Obama gets to claim that on one front, at least, he was absolutely right about the need for government intervention in the economy — and that his critics were absolutely wrong. Last year, Republicans derided Obama’s auto industry bailout as a dire threat to capitalism as we know it, but today, the auto industry is once again turning a profit and adding jobs in key communities.

    WaPo

    Where do they find these people? Is Harvard really that big?

    1. “but today, the auto industry is once again turning a profit”

      Getting “free” capital from the government makes profitability easy. And suspect.

    2. Yes, billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on a $41,000 vehicle with a very limited run is just what “capitalism” is all about!

      The threat is to free enterprise, not “capitalism” as ignorant lefties define it.

  24. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

  25. No politician in his right mind would vote against this thing.

    I expect Ron Paul to vote “nay.” 😉

  26. “Here is a complete list of the senators who had the sense, honesty, and (sadly needed) courage to vote against the moronic Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act, which doubles penalties for people who sell controlled substances “combined with a candy product” and “marketed or packaged to appear similar to a candy product”:”

    Wait, wheres the list?

    1. See?! See why we need this law?!

  27. the moronic Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act, which doubles penalties for people who sell controlled substances “combined with a candy product” and “marketed or packaged to appear similar to a candy product”

    So . . . we need government, right? Who are YOU to question our sage and wise slave-owners?

  28. It is already a felony to sell or give marijuana in any form to minors.

    So why do we need another law to cover this ? Is there somebody who is arguing that if it is candy, it somehow is not a felony ?

    What is going on here is pure grandstanding by the 2 clown Senators. “Oh, we have to protect the children”. The children already have laws protecting them on this– provide it to a minor and you get to go to a federal prison for a long time.

    Feinstein and Grassley are not helping anybody with this– but they never intended to do anything other than use it for their own political benefit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.