Drug War

Watching California's Newspapers Line Up Against Legalizing the Pot That 90% of Their Employees Have Smoked


Clear thinking

I'm going to keep a running tally of my former newspaper editorial board bretheren lining up in lockstep against California's landmark legalization initiative, Prop. 19. So that you don't have to wade through all 450 words of each bad argument, I'll boil 'em down to their essentials:

Newspaper: Riverside Press-Enterprise
Sophomoric pot joke: "clouds complex policy issues in a smoky haze of uncertainty"
We-don't-necessarily-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: "Many Californians have valid questions about current marijuana policy, with respect to both resources and results. But any change in strategy should come from the federal government, which sets drug policy, and not the state."
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "The measure's vague language would result in endless litigation, and put state and federal drug laws in confusing conflict."
Bonus random statism: "Prop. 19 would also put the state at risk of violating federal drug-free workplace rules, jeopardizing federal contracts with California businesses and federal funding for schools and other public services."

Newspaper: North County Times
Sophomoric pot joke: "Keep a lid on the pot"
We-don't-necessarily-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: "While there are good, reasonable arguments to be made in favor of Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana for personal use and allow counties to legalize it entirely, it strikes us that the potential harm from legalizing pot far outweighs any good it might accomplish."
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "The policies in place now are reasonable and prudent."
Bonus random statism: "we support the current state policy of classifying marijuana use as a low-grade crime and of allowing its use for those whose doctors suggest it for legitimate medical reasons—and coupling that to increased education about the risks of marijuana use, similar to public education campaigns regarding alcohol and tobacco use."

This is going to be an interesting political campaign

Newspaper: Contra Costa Times
Sophomoric pot joke: n/a
We-don't-necessarily-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: "Clearly prohibition against it has been a failure as was prohibition against alcohol. When there is a huge market of millions of people for a product, prohibition inevitably leads to a criminal market to fulfill the demand."
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "If California should legalize marijuana, it could create a conflict with federal agencies, which could then take over enforcement of marijuana laws and reduce state and local control and flexibility in applying marijuana laws and in setting penalties."
Bonus random statism: "Prop. 19 would create a major conflict with the federal government that could result in considerable confusion and perhaps a loss of federal funding for drug treatment programs, for example."

Newspaper: Gilroy Dispatch
Sophomoric pot joke: "voters should make sure Proposition 19…goes up in smoke this November."
We-don't-necessarily-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: n/a
Legal confusion is worse than criminalizing non-violent personal activity: "The point is there's no compelling reason to legalize the drug for recreational use."
Nine decades is not enough–we need more time!: "Our society really doesn't need to legalize another drug that involves such serious debate on health issues. The questions about whether or not marijuana use leads to heavier drug use don't have to be answered definitively. That debate rages on."

Newspaper: Desert Sun
Sophomoric pot joke: "a dopey idea"
We-don't-necessarily-like-the-Drug-War-either-but: n/a
WTF: "And it can hurt your heart. 'Marijuana increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent shortly after smoking.'"
Bonus random statism: "We also wonder how neighboring states would react. Would there be checkpoints at every road into Arizona, Nevada and Oregon? Would the federal government withhold funding?"

I'm currently unaware of any California newspaper editorializing in favor of allowing cities to allow their residents to put a comparatively harmless substance in their bodies without fear of potentially life-altering government sanction (please list any/all editorials in the comments). While this is all tawdry and shameful, it strengthens my irrational hope for a May 2009-style citizen revolt against one of the country's most disgraceful political classes.

NEXT: Reason Writers on the Tube: Nick Gillespie on News Hour Talking Islamophobia

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. Everybody’s got a big but.

    1. I like big buts and I cannot lie . . .

  2. “The point is there’s no compelling reason to legalize the drug for recreational use.”

    Because there’s never a compelling reason for the government to do nothing.

    1. Nice double negative, and a very good point. When was the last time (outside a libertarian blog) you heard anyone complain that the government wasn’t doing enough? Gridlock is “bad.” The “party of no” is “bad.” Most Americans, sadly, have bought into the idea that the government’s role is not a guarantor of our rights as humans, but rather a dispenser of favors and goodies. But you knew that.

      1. The people sent us here to solve their problems. Not to play politics.

      2. Well, there really is much to be gained from sensible debate of the relative merits of bread vs. circuses – not some nutcase ideology that wants to take us back to 1900!

    2. “The point is there’s no compelling reason to legalize the drug for recreational use.”

      No. The point is there’s no compelling reason to prohibit the recreational use of cannabis.

    3. In these depressing economic times, the wacky tobacky will bring mello to the melloless, and stimulate the late night fast food industry (you know why they are open after midnight – other than a stoner, who needs a chalupa after midnight??? and by chalupa, I mean Taco Bell food, not the bizarre sexual practice, and by taco I mean…) by billions upon billions of dollars.

  3. goddamn liberal media!

    1. The liberal nanny state is alive and well.

      1. Funny… I think that the right wing conservative nanny state is alive and well. Right wingers are the main ones leading the charge for prohibition.

        1. Is that you, Ezra? What are you calling it now, Bongolist?

        2. You mean right wingers like Diane Feinstein?


          1. The vastness of the conspiracy is boundless

          2. You think Democrats and conservatives don’t mix?

        3. During the ’30s and the ’40s, liberals ignored the excesses of the monstrous Stalin dictatorship and swore the problem was right-wingers ‘threatening’ the wonderful wave of the future. Reality intruded, oh, about 1989.
          Similarly, brain-dead ignoramuses continue to stare facts in the face and…
          Well, decide that “up” somehow equals “down”.
          Hey, Kevin! What side of your house is sun-lit in the morning?

          1. West!… I mean… North!… Err.. South. Uh… Wait–you said sun-lit… Is it East?

        4. The progressives started the Food and Drug Administration. Which isn’t a bad thing, we need to know our food and drugs are safe, and that our drugs do what the manufacturers claim they do. However, marijuana, cocaine and heroin, plant products, were legal before the FDA. Now, by criminalizing them, we have created one more reason for criminal elements to exist. This is where the law-and-order right wing gets involved. As a right wing person, let me say this has led to madness. We should decriminalize these drugs. Make sure they are free from toxic impurities, and taxed at a reasonable rate. I would like to know where in America there is a high school student who can’t get any of these drugs now? The unintended consequence is the complex web of drug cartels in favor of distributing drugs, and the cartel of law enforcement who are willing to go over the top enforcing the laws. We need to fear both groups.

          The “Rockefeller Laws” in New York were passed by Nelson Rockefeller so he could prove that he was “tough” on crime. Those laws have penalized too many people for a truly minor, private offense.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for drug testing: we don’t want airline pilots, train engineers and bus drivers high while working. And selected others as well.

          1. The progressives started the Food and Drug Administration. Which isn’t a bad thing, we need to know our food and drugs are safe, and that our drugs do what the manufacturers claim they do.

            So much fail this morning…

        5. The left-wing media position aligns pretty well with the official policies of such places as Cuba, NorK, PRC and former USSR.

          Drug prohibition is one policy that virtually all welfare-state governments share.

        6. No, the right-wing conservatives are just more honest about supporting prohibition.

      2. You’re not far off the mark!

        Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and “true” Conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society’s problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with “fake” conservatism is over moral issues. But a true conservative would have no problem with agreeing, that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business, and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.

        Fake-Conservatism on the other hand has much in common with socialism; Both Leftists and Fake-Conservatives appear to harbor the belief that nature does not exist and that any human can be anything he wants to be, or can for the “greater good”, be “re-educated” into being. Leftists therefore think little boys can be conditioned into preferring dolls over toy soldiers, and similarly Fake-conservatives believe that adults can be coerced into choosing alcohol over marijuana. A true conservative, just like a pragmatic libertarian, would immediately reject both ideas as nonsense.

        1. What exactly is the difference between “‘true’ conservatism” and libertarianism? Also, what is the difference between “fake-conservatism” and liberalism?

          In my opinion, everyone left of libertarians are at-least liberals.

          1. My take on it:

            Paleo-conservatives –
            (small government/traditional values)

            Libertarians –
            (small government/modern values)

            sort of like:

            (big government/traditional values)

            Liberals/Democrats –
            (big government/modern values)

        2. I have a much simpler question: What is the essential difference between a “Real” conservative and a fake one? You wrote some words that said some stuff, but I’m not sure that I’ve seen anyone, particularly not a politician, who claims to be a conservative talk about the essential immorality of the war on drugs (save perhaps Ron Paul, if he’s a conservative).

          When I start to see large factions of conservatives, republicans, talk about ending the war on drugs, I’ll buy the theory that there’s a difference between “real” and “Fake” conservatives.

          1. difference between “real” and “Fake” conservatives.

            Allow me to clear that up for ya mad lib:

            Real conservatives are actually, you know, conservative.

            Fake conservatives claim to follow conservative values, then enact wasteful statism as soon as they get elected.

            So the difference boils down to: all elected “conservatives” are the fake variety. If they were really conservative, they would’ve gotten a real job.

            1. I’m a fan of the two dimensional model of politics.

              Liberal vs. Conservative
              Authoritarian vs. Libertarian

              So you can be Conservative and Authoritarian, which would describe most of the Republicans in office and why they support big government.

  4. Hey man! Got any Doritos man?

    1. Dave’s not here, man.

      1. But it’s me, Dave…

        1. Dave’s not here, man.

          1. Hey man! Got any Doritos man?

            1. You just said that, man. Oh, btw. Got any Doritos, dude?

  5. The Contra Costa blurb makes them look like pussies, but at least they’re not deluded pussies like the other examples posted.

    1. “…a major conflict with the federal government that could result in… loss of federal funding…”

      They’re pussies like the rest of them.

      1. They can’t fathom getting off of the dole. And they can’t fathom, due t the fact that they, as a state, pay more money in income taxes than they receive, that they’d be better off if they could somehow help influence change in the tax code.

  6. In 1972, the Riverside Press Enterprise endorsed a Yes vote on Proposition 19, the California Marijuana Initiative.

    Since then, it has been bought by the Dallas Morning News which has a pro-government conservative editorial policy, so that in 1996 the P-E endorsed a No vote on Prop 215 the Medical Marijuana Initiative.

    Also endorsing a Yes on 19 in 1972 were The Orange County Register, the Anaheim Bulletin and the Daily Californian at UC Berkeley. The Anaheim Bulletin is defunct but I expect the other two papers to back Prop 19 this year.

    1. Are you sure it was 1972? I remember the decrimininalization initiative, I think that was 1982. Is that what you’re thinking of or was there another one in 72?

      1. decrimininalization

        Say that word after smoking…

        1. Why do you think they call it dope?

          1. Juanita, I know you’re never ever going to be able to take that small step into reality, not even once prohibition has been finally banished to the annuls of history. You are clearly the type of person who forms and then clings to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is a mental phenomenon known as “motivated reasoning” –Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, you actually seek out information that -in your mind at least- confirms what you already believe. Thankfully, such an erroneous modus operandi is easily spotted by others, who are in possession of the normal ability to see through your cognitive dissonance of elaborate and spurious rationalizations based on faulty information.

            Like it or not, there has never been, and nor will there ever be, a drug-free society; the use of addictive or recreational drugs is a natural part of human existence. Nobody here is claiming that any substance is beneficial for either the individual or society. It is true however that certain substances help the soul heal and relieve pain while others provide short-term relief from a monotonous existence at the risk of possible long-term health problems.

            An important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to do with yourself as you please as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. Many among us may disagree with this, and they should be free to believe what they wish, but the moment they are willing to use force to impose their will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. The problems created by self harm then rapidly pale into insignificance as society spirals downwards into a dark abyss, while the most shady characters and ‘black-market corporate entities’ exponentially enrich themselves in a feeding frenzy likened to that of piranhas on bath-tub meth.

            Prohibition isn’t like a disease where we’re still waiting for the cure to be discovered – we know the cure for this. This isn’t like putting a man on the moon or inventing the Internet – it doesn’t take some stroke of genius or feat of technology. We have everything we need, right now, to end this moronothon. Rarely in the history of mankind have we encountered a problem of such magnitude and consequence that is so eminently solvable.

            The Founding Fathers were not social conservatives who believed that citizens should be subordinate to any particular narrow religious moral order. That is what the whole concept of unalienable individual rights means, and sumptuary laws, especially in the form of prohibition, were something they continually warned about.

            Imagine, that by some impossible means, prohibition succeeded in eradicating more than 90% of all the cocaine in the world, bringing production down to a mere one ton a week. Now imagine what that one single ton would be worth and what people would be willing to do to get it to market.

          2. “Why do you think they call it dope?”

            Because only stupid people are afraid of it?

          3. It’s called “dope” because it rots people’s minds to such an extent that they support the War on Some Drugs … which explains the anti-legalization editorials under discussion.

            I suspect that marijuana might be particularly likely to induce groupthink. I have not had any direct personal experience but I have noticed that it is defended as reinforcing the approved habits in the social group of the user. In Victorian times it was supposed to suppress the sex drive. Recently it was supposed to do the opposite. When it was used by peace protesters it was a “peace drug.” When it was used by soldiers it induced foolhardy bravery. When it was used in areas with high crime rates it was a “killer weed.” If we put that together we can see that marijuana is a conformist drug—probably because of its ability to make people suggestible. In the present case, it causes people to go along with pro-drug-war opinions.

  7. But any change in strategy should come from the federal government, which sets drug policy, and not the state.


    1. What did you expect? They’re journalists. Their education is approximately equal to that of a public school teacher. No offense, Matt.

      1. Well, there is Raich, easily the worst USSC decision since Roe…

      2. That hurts. Might be true, but still, it hurts.

  8. It’s shocking how much the political class (which, as this article once again shows, includes mainstream journalism) is out of step with the general public on this issue. It’s hard to think of any other issue in which the politicians and press are nearly entirely on one side while the public is evenly split.
    I wonder if it’s simply that political types are just incapable of conceiving of abolishing alongstanding major mission of Government (in this case, prohibition).
    Am I the only one who thinks losing Federal funding would be a good thing?

    1. As long as they hang together in favoring the Drug War, they can be sure not to hang separately.

      Look what’s being done to Rand Paul for a sneak preview of what would happen to any politician going all the way to openly favoring legalization.

      1. Look what’s being done to Rand Paul for a sneak preview of what would happen to any politician going all the way to openly favoring legalization.

        He’s on his way to becoming the next U.S. Senator from Kentucky? Yeah, that’ll show them not to ever favor personal freedom …

        1. …but not until engaging is frantic rhetorical backpedaling…

      2. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. Rand said he’s against even MEDICAL Cannabis. Screw him…

    2. I suspect this so-called political class is just disingenuous.

  9. “But any change in strategy should come from the federal government, which sets drug policy, and not the state.”

    Man, question beg much Riverside Press?

  10. Drug legalization? We wouldn’t want all the money we have spent on destroying Mexico go to waste, would we?

    Brazil’s becoming a regional power but at least they’re far away. If we legalize drugs, Mexico will become a power too and our stoned youngsters won’t be fit to stop the Reconquista.

    Drug policy is foreign policy and our policy is to stay on top by keeping others down.

    1. Drug policy is foreign policy and our policy is to stay on top by keeping others down.

      This is bullshit. Mexico has plenty of problems all their own without the drug war. Furthermore our success is tied to Mexico’s success. In nearly all cases in trade and economics what is good for Mexico is only going to help us and vice versa.

      The drug war hurts us at least as much as it hurts Mexico.

      1. Not to mention a prosperous Mexico will do more to stop illegal immigration than the longest, hardest, tallest fence in the universe.

        1. longest, hardest, tallest

          No homo?

          1. Yes.

            I mean, no.

            Which ever one means I’m not gay.

            1. Homophobe.

              1. They’ll erect a huge stiff fence, promise.

                1. Your pubes are weird.

                  1. I’ll sell you my pubes for $15…

                2. I’m getting a huge, stiff clue right now…

                  1. Come on, dog, red rocket!

            2. HOMOPHOBE!!! – you didn’t put on the disclaimer, “Which ever one means I’m not gay…not that theres anything wrong with that”

      2. No, no, no, no! That’s incorrect thinking. It is our wealth as a country that keeps Mexico poor.

        Just like here in the States – it’s a zero sum game. You can’t expect people at the bottom to prosper when people like Bill Gates exploit the rest of the country with useless computer products.

        This is the hope and change era, boys and girls. Mexico is down because we are up. When our economy collapses, then, and only then, can Mexico prosper.

        1. I’m not smellin’ what MS is cookin’. Is this one of those questions about whether the pie gets larger or stays the same size?

        2. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. We can make the pie bigger.

          1. In this case, we can make the pie higher.

    2. Conservative Bedwetter forgot to remind us all that “It’s for the children.”

    3. Actually, if Mexico’s economy wasn’t so crappy, there would be less illegal immigration. So I’m pretty much for things that help Mexico’s economy, provided they don’t involve stealing shit from me.

  11. “Many Californians have valid questions about current marijuana policy, with respect to both resources and results. But any change in strategy should come from the federal government, which sets drug policy, and not the state.”

    Well if they feel that way about immigration, why not feel that way about everything else…?

    That does beg the question though–if the state shouldn’t enforce federal laws, then why is the state criminal justice system involved in this?

    Shouldn’t the State of California stay the hell out of federal drug policy, just like everything else?

    1. Prop 19 is mute on federal law regarding MJ, it is a modification of Cal state law.

      1. That’s the point.

        If they’re gonna argue that we shouldn’t change state law because drug policy is a federal issue, then why have the State of California enforce drug policy at all?

        They’re all pretty much on board with the idea that immigration shouldn’t be enforced by any agency that isn’t part of the federal government–because immigration is a federal issue.

        So, if that’s the way they feel about immigration, why should state agencies enforce what should–by their logic–be an exclusively federal issue?!

        They wrote:

        “But any change in strategy should come from the federal government, which sets drug policy, and not the state.”

        O RLY?

        What they’re saying is that federal law should trump any attempt to change state law! That it should be perfectly okay to use local police to enforce federal law–specifically because it’s a federal issue?!

        That doesn’t make sense. It isn’t even internally consistent.

        How much you wanna bet that the same editorial board says local police shouldn’t enforce immigration law because it’s a federal issue?

        When the people of California want to make it so local police are no longer enforcing federal drug laws because it’s a federal issue–all of a sudden, no, local police should be required to enforce state laws specifically because it’s a federal issue?

        I call shenanigans.

        1. There you go, trying to be all logical.

          This is statism we’re talking about – and the states need to and should enforce federal issues….when we think they should. And stuff. Except immigration, cause…that’s different. For teh childrenz…

        2. Ken, you are exactly right.

        3. The federal government needs state and local law enforcement to enforce federal law and edicts. Do you think the FBI is going to do DWI roadblocks to enforce the federal 0.08 BAC limit or child support payments?

          Even in such areas as education, environment, health care, and worker safety the Feds set the policy and incentivize the states to execute it. The states are addicted to the incentives and comply with virtually every significant edict from the Feds.

          The CA proposition may pass, but pressure will build on Sacramento if federal funds are ever at stake. And you can bet that the uber-nannies in DC will make that happen.

          1. I’m not making my own argument here about whether the states should or shouldn’t enforce federal law. But it seems silly of a newspaper board to suggest that state law can’t differ with federal mandates–unless they’re willing to do that all the way across the board.

            California has state agencies and local law enforcement and state law. And the suggestion that the people of California shouldn’t control the laws those agencies abide by and enforce–through democratic means–is ridiculous.

            If you want to get rid of state government, I’ll listen to those arguments. But if we’re gonna have state government that’s responsive to the people of California, then why shouldn’t it be responsive to California voters?

            …so long as constitutional rights are guaranteed? It’s not as if decriminalizing marijuana were about to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights. Want to tell me that local police can’t enforce immigration law without discriminating against people because of their color or national origin? Okay.

            But don’t tell me the State of California can’t enforce immigration law because that’s a federal jurisdiction–and then turn around and tell me that local law enforcement must enforce federal marijuana law because that’s a federal jurisdiction!

            They can’t have it both ways.

  12. Our society really doesn’t need to legalize another drug that involves such serious debate on health issues.

    There are issues at stake. Health issues, at that! And when there are issues, it is necessary for us to give the full focus of our attention to issues, because issues are important, actual living breathing thinking decision making people are not things we understand, so we don’t take those things into consideration. Issues, however, are what matter.

    1. But you have to admit that legalizing pot goes against the larger cultural meme. It seems like we are probably 5-10 years from banning cigarettes. How does that square with legal pot?

      And after the health care thing passed, it seemed to open the door for more nanny state prohibitions on unhealthy living. At some point it seems that eating at McDonalds will be a crime against the larger social order.

      So, will there be a time when drugs will be legal and trans fat will be against the law?

      1. No. You hit the nail on the head. Obamacare is the be all and end all for personal freedom. Almost every decision we make affects our health.

      2. Why not? In FL motorcycle helmets are optional but bicycle helmets are mandatory.

      3. But you have to admit . . .

        How many times I have to tell you people that without fingerprints, dna evidence and original negatives, I don’t admit to anything.

      4. We can’t legalize pot! Then a bunch of people will smoke it, get the munchies, and chow down on McDonald’s hamburgers and hostess twinkies, while sitting on their couch watching mindless television. And this will impact you because we force you to shoulder a portion of these people’s healthcare bill. Because we’re so much more humane.

  13. That didn’t really seem like a “but” in the we-don’t-necessarily-like-the-Drug-War-either scenario from Contra Costa Times. But, of course, they make up for a lack of argument in favor of the WoD in their desire for sweet harmony with the federal government.

    I really think that the government has done such a good job “educating” generation after generation of the intrinsic evil of recreational drug use that otherwise reasonable people will fish for whatever unreasonable justification for clinging to the notion, and often even continuing the indoctrination of others, as these California birdcage-liners seem to be doing.

  14. Pot leads to crack. Crack leads to meth. Meth leads to the dark side.

    1. And totally awesome hoodie capes.

        1. The ad doesn’t specify who paid the 15 bucks.

          1. I’m guessing it’s whoever took the picture.

          2. That ad is obscene. Now I can never wear plaid again.

    2. Meth must keep some dentists in business.

      1. Only the ones who later become respectable get their teeth fixed. I see plenty of people (here in this rural county) walking around with rotten teeth. It was a bit of a shock when I first came here.

        1. And they all drive pickup trucks with nothing in the back but empty beer cans! Why?

  15. Is Pot similar to tobacco where 99% of all users had their hit before they turned 20 years old?

  16. At the end of the day, of course, we have to ask how many voters will even read any of these, and among that subset, how many even care what a newspaper editorial board thinks.

    1. I’m willing to bet that people who care what the newspaper editorial board thinks are disproportionately among those who think “at the end of the day” is NOT a skin-crawl-inducing phrase.

      1. i want to kick them in their low hanging fruit

  17. I hope I am wrong, but it looks as though the HEARST dynasty is STILL trying to Destroy cannabis through YELLOW JOURNALISM.

    Hearst media outlet KCRA 3 California has now REJECTED my simple avatar that says “Yes On 19” TWICE! There are no profanities, insults, colors, anything. The size is only 24 kb, so its not too big.

    “KCRA-TV, channel 3, is a television station in Sacramento, California, United States. KCRA-TV is owned by Hearst Television, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation”
    (from wiki)

    Here is their banal response to my submissions (only one response shown for brevity):

    “Hello CannDo,

    Thanks for your submission. We’re sorry to say that your photo “WhyBlockMyPicture1.jpg” has been rejected.

    You can still login and edit it in your KCRA 3 u local Community Home, here:

    To add more photo, click here:

    Give it another try… we’re looking forward to your next submission!

    (If any of the links don’t work, copy

    Questions? Contact us at ugc@hearst.com

    KCRA 3 u local Community Team!”

    HOPEFULLY this is not censorship. I emailed them asking to be informaed as to the company policy that dictated my profile image should be banned.

    1. Elections cannot inconvenience me. They ratify my will or I neuter them.

  18. I like the cut of your jib and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    1. It’s easy to grin, when your ship comes in, and you’ve got the stock market beat. But the man worthwhile, is the man that can smile, when his shorts are too tight in the seat.

  19. I wish I was a subscriber to every one of those fine newspapers… Then I could indignantly cancel my subscriptions and wish them all into the hell of the failing newsprint business.

  20. Matt, I’m not a proponent of legalization myself but you’ve done a hilarious, and dead-on, job of showing just how ludicrous the newspaper editorial writers are.

    1. I’ll never forgive you for what you did to Vercingetorix, he was a good man you jerk!

      1. rofl, those comics were just Gaul propaganda.

        1. What, Asterix the Gaul?

  21. These are all corporate owned papers of course they think its a dopey idea to legalize pot and hemp.Not only would it cut down ofn the profits from their drug company ties but paper and fuel made from hemp would cut their limber and oil profits.Oh and the for profit prison system…all the neo-cons are heavily invested in that.What do they know.

    Legalize all drugs.Regulate and Tax them.Same with prostitution while were at it.

    But the real reason we wont get it legalized is the CIA likes its secret under the table drug money to do with what they please without ant pescky congressional oversite.Afganistan opium biggest cash crop ever this year coming to a town near you….cheaper than pot.

    1. Mmm, that’s tasty conspiracy. Plus the “regulate and tax” rhetoric. Nothing says “freedom” like taxation, regulation, and conspiracies.

      1. If you value your sanity, DO NOT ASK HIM about planes and buildings.

        1. LOL!!

          “Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC

          3:31 p.m. September 11, 2001: FBI Issues Lookout Warning for White Van Possibly Connected to 9/11 AttacksAttack and Cheering, Calls Police

          September 12-November 9, 2001: Two More Movers Arrested in US; Suspected to Be Israeli Spies
          3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001: Five Apparent Israeli Spies Arrested for Puzzling Behavior at Time of First WTC Attack

          Urban Moving Systems
          Urban Moving Systems was a participant or observer in the following events: …. five are Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. …
          http://www.historycommons.org ? Entities – Cached – Similar”

      2. Conspiracy?
        Uh hello everyone of these papers is part of a conglomerate hello?You dont think they are invested in drug companies and healthcare?You do know the history of Hearst newspapers and hemp.I bet you do.

        And you think its just a cooinkydink that whatever drug running country the CIA happens to be in that drug over runs our country?

        Yes Im sure it all just my imagination.You know like the BCCI scandel.I made it all up.

        1. Why aren’t you talking about this when editorials like these promote taxing and regulating large corporations? Hmmm…

        2. “Uh hello everyone of these papers is part of a conglomerate hello?”


          Anyway, I do believe in such conspiracies, but it seems more logical to me that they occur from the bottom up rather than the top down.

      3. I have a better conspiracy.

        Columnists in most American papers are idiots and statists who favor more government control vs less government control. Plus they are culturally conservative who view change to the status que as a threat.

        One thing that would be fun is to read newspaper coverage and columnists for MLKs March on Washington.

        1. That wouldn’t be fun, that would make me sad.

        2. No, I think they just think it incumbent on themselves to have that image.

    2. Hanlon’s Razor

      1. You might be right.But there are alot of powerful interests that dont want hemp or pot legal.Take the drug companies as just one example.

        1. Pharmacutical Industry, Alcoholic Beverage Industry, Timber Industry, Petroleum Industry, Synthetic Fiber Industry, and the list goes on….

          1. What I don’t get is why don’t the industries that would benefit from legalization throw their hats in the ring. C’mon cheetos and white castle, grow some friggin’ balls!

          2. The whole anti hemp conspiracy is seriously overblown. There are plenty of countries where it is legal to grow hemp and you can import it to the USA, but it has yet to pose even a comical threat to other industries. The pharmaceuticals will do well even with any light competition from medical marijuana, which I believe is probably a niche market, although important.

    3. Yes, the war on drugs has been so successful that homegrown pot is more expensive than crack and meth and horse. I’m thinking American growers might be big fans of the WoD also. Makes business sense.

  22. “And it can hurt your heart. ‘Marijuana increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent shortly after smoking.'”

    Really? An increase in heart rate by itself doesn’t “hurt your heart”, you nimrods. Sex elevates your heart rate by 20-100% too. I guess we should ban that. Ditto jogging or other aerobics. Where do we find these people?

    By the way, tobacco also elevates your heart rate. So does coffee, Coca-cola, and Red Bull. Alcohol also can have cardiac effects. So can eating a heavy meal. So by the logic of these idiots we’re up to banning alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, sex, exercise, and eating. I feel safer already.

    1. And you think they aren’t trying to ban those ?

    2. In a hard-hitting series of articles over the next week, we lay out the case for banning or more-heavily regulating sex, jogging and other aerobics, tobacco, Coca-Cola, Red Bull, alcohol, and eating a heavy meals.

      And in Section B, we take a breathless, inside look at the people who put together this year’s Garden Tour of the Douchebag Heights neighborhood.

    3. In a hard-hitting series of articles over the next week, we lay out the case for banning or more-heavily regulating sex, jogging and other aerobics, tobacco, Coca-Cola, Red Bull, alcohol, and eating a heavy meals.

      And in Section B, we take a breathless, inside look at the people who put together this year’s Garden Tour of the Douchebag Heights neighborhood.

    4. In a hard-hitting series of articles over the next week, we lay out the case for banning or more-heavily regulating sex, jogging and other aerobics, tobacco, Coca-Cola, Red Bull, alcohol, and eating a heavy meals.

      And in Section B, we take a breathless, inside look at the people who put together this year’s Garden Tour of the Douchebag Heights neighborhood.

  23. The Pot Prop will go down in flames thanks to:

    1) CA’s growing medical MJ industry, which is Dead Set against this. (see if you can spot the 2 puns!)

    2) The existing entrenched US Pro-Pot Lobby, which politically is to the left of Obama and is in dire need of a shower. Seriously, the pro-weed activists do more for the WOD than Joe Arpaio could ever dream of.

  24. After about two years of not smoking, I finally got some a couple of weeks ago (I’m proud of myself that I’m making it last).

    I do think the tide is turning, though it will be interesting to see how many voters allow the propaganda rags to do the thinking for them.

    Does anyone know how this thing is polling so far?

    1. Given our side’s trouble with motivation and remembering, these numbers don’t look particularly awesome to me.

    2. What difference does it make? Even if it passes, some judge will declare it unconstitutional, anyway.

  25. Not quite the same as an actual newspaper editorial, but here is a pro-19 OpEd that the San Jose Mercury-News published today, written by a former SJ chief of police.


  26. The measure’s vague language would result in endless litigation.

    As opposed to endless prosecution. Thanks.

    The policies in place now are reasonable and prudent.

    I dare anyone who believes this to cite a law he thinks is unreasonable.

    Marijuana increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent shortly after smoking.

    Even if this weren’t an out-and-out exaggeration, running can do more than that and isn’t dangerous. Exposure to stupid also increases my heart rate.

    Seriously, the only argument left against this is that it conflicts with federal inanity. The health issues have been addressed in a way that satisfies everyone but total prudes, DUI’s been proven a canard, workplace issues are non-existent, etc.

    But even that argument doesn’t hold water. The feds claim that the policy is to only raid places in conflict with state law. California has a yawning budget deficit. Californians pay far more in federal taxes than they get back. I really think they can call this bluff and win.

    1. “Even if this weren’t an out-and-out exaggeration, running can do more than that and isn’t dangerous.”

      Ha, tell that to Jim Fixx(‘s corpse). Woulda been better off lighting up a spliff that morning I’ll wager.

  27. They wanted to write a sensible editorial, but then they got high.

  28. Marijuana increases your heart rate?

    So does sex. Should be ban that in all recreational forms as well?

  29. Would that Rastafarianism were a form of Islam, eh?

  30. Another run of the mill “make sure your flash drive is clean before giving a presentation to school kids” story:

    Dear Parents/Guardians,

    A representative from the Central Blood Bank was here today to speak to our Senior Class about donating blood. As preparations were made for the representative of the Central Blood Bank to show a Power Point Presentation, a few pornographic pictures that were on the representative’s flash drive was briefly viewed by members of our Senior Class. We sincerely regret this incident and apologize to the students and the parents of the Norwin School District.

    The North Huntingdon Township Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office have been contacted and an investigation of the incident is currently underway.

    Yeah, this guy/gal is fucked. It’s an election year.

    1. Stupidity has a price.

      1. Maybe he just got it mixed up with his presentation for the sperm bank.

    2. “a few pornographic pictures that were on the representative’s flash drive was briefly viewed”

      another sample uf wie junior caint rite

  31. I don’t really get the obsession with legalizing drugs among libertarians (and even non-libertarians). I think it seems increasingly more likely to happen than, say, getting rid of welfare or public hospitals. So obviously after drugs are decriminalized, taxpayers will be funding more drug habits than they already are. Is that ok with you guys? It’s not with me.

    1. My thesis advisor always told me that if you want to find the mistakes in someone’s paper, do a search for the string “obviously”.

      1. True that; “obviously” is simply shorthand for “this is my opinion, which I can’t be bothered to back up with any facts or logical arguments.”

        And unless the same “girls never have to buy their own pot” rule from my high-school days in the seventies is still the norm today, I’m not seeing where anyone has to worry about paying for the drug habits of others.

    2. More seriously, the savings that would be realized by cutting the prison population in half would far, far outweigh any increase in social service spending that would result from legalizing drugs, the existence of which is pretty unlikely in the first place.

      1. Hey, shut up.

        1. Hey warden, do something useful with your life.

        2. Yeah, shut up!

          1. Don’t worry, we’ll find some alternative employment for you guys. Just off the top of my head you would fit right in in the public school system.

            1. Where do you think I get most of my revenue *cough*, I mean dangerous criminals from? Although, there’s quite a few judges who will make sure I’ll be set for life.

      2. More seriously, the savings that would be realized by cutting the prison population in half would far, far outweigh any increase in social service spending that would result from legalizing drugs, the existence of which is pretty unlikely in the first place.

        Er, cite please?

        Sure, just like we were told legalizing abortion would never require taxpayers to subsidize it, giving public aid to single mothers would never lead to single women having illegitimate children to take advantage of those benefits, and getting rid of the sodomy laws would never lead to gay marriage, and no-fault divorce would never lead to to an increase of divorces.

        Based on the history of most initiatives that started with the plea, “It’s nobody’s business! I’m not hurting anyone but myself!”, I’d say the smart money says that if wasn’t my business before it was legalized, it’s damned well going to become my business after it is, and usually right in my wallet.

        Essentially what you’re telling me is that since I’m going to have to support somebody’s bad lifestyle choices, I might as well pay to subsidize it instead of punishing it.

        Bullshit! If I have to pay for it either way, I’ll take paying for the punishment!

        1. rofl – you ask for a citation then write a slew of unsubstantiated paleoconservative sacred-cow dogma. KEEP ON TROOOOLLIN’ IN THE FREE WORLD

        2. How does gay marriage cost you money?

    3. I understand this objection just about as much as the one about how we shouldn’t support something that will tax and regulate marijuana, as though holding out for total, instantaneous legalization would work better than progressively changing attitudes when people see that legal/decriminalized/whatever pot has zero negative effects on society.

      There is no path to legalization in the US that will avoid a special tax, special regulation, or some bone tossed to the “treatment not incarceration” camp (i.e. nearly all the liberal supporters I know). None. However, all of those are far less repressive than the status quo, and movement in the right direction will greatly increase the odds of further liberalization, while continuing the War on Drugs in the same way won’t.

      We have alcohol taxes, regulations that have been progressively relaxed even if they aren’t ideal, and some court-ordered treatment for alcoholics. I’ll take a beer and those inconveniences over the mob, poisoned alcohol and prison terms.

      1. Hear him! I’ll take a bloody sin tax over the “cops on yer ass” tax that we have right now!

      2. Somehow we skipped most of that, getting just a bit of the “treatment not incarceration” stage, with homosexual intercourse. Is that because it’s a service rather than a product?

    4. Since we don’t drug test anybody who receives any from of government assistance (SNAP, SSI, TANF, Medicaid, Section 8 housing etc.) then what makes you think we are not already subsidizing a lot people’s pot?

  32. a) Is Reason really one to make fun of a sophmoric headline joke?

    b) I’ve been curious about this: Let’s say CA, in a moment of clarity, legalized pot. And the feds continued to arrest people in CA for it. And progressives bitched about it as not only morally wrong but as also contra to state laws. Would this mean they agreed with the doctrine of nullification?

    1. Duder,

      You completely misunderstand the context. Look again, Welch didn’t write Sophomoric joke, he wrote Sophomoric pot joke. There is a difference. You will see all kinds of sophomoric humor in Reason staff postings, but none, absolutely none, when it comes to pot, because that crew takes its pot very seriously. Just ask any of them, ‘cut the seeds from this here dank shit, yo’, and he well hop to it, dump the weed on a plate, get out a credit card and get those seeds separated out before you have time to blink. So, your accusation of hypocrisy is bunk.

      1. I think the reason staff can afford to buy pot with no seeds in it. Hell, I’ve been living in WA for 6 months working at dominos, and I can afford weed that doesn’t have any seeds. Well, except the odd one. It certainly is a step up from the mexican dirt weed I was smoking in Texas, of course it is a lot more expensive. I kinda miss being able to buy a whole brick of the cheap stuff.

        1. Yeah, but can they buy both a decent bag of pot and heroin from a safe batch on the same score with what they make? They are journalist, probably not.

    2. Would this mean they agreed with the doctrine of nullification?

      Only during Republican administrations. Kind of like how they used to object to wars, remember?


    3. Would this mean they agreed with the doctrine of nullification?

      Only during Republican administrations. Kind of like how they used to object to wars, remember?


    4. You don’t have to agree with the doctrine of nullification to think the feds have no authority to do that.

      You do have to believe in the doctrine of enumerated powers though, which they’re likely to find equally abhorrent.

  33. Off Topic:

    Pedo Bear outed.

    Jesus Christ certain segments of society are so generally clueless I almost feel sorry for them.

    1. Comments are marvelous. As expected.

    2. That has to be a joke, right? No one thinks rumors about pedophile bear mascot sightings qualify as news. Right??

    3. JPH at Sep 11th 2010 2:29 PM
      The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department is warning parents about a disturbing new phenomenon made popular by an extremist inquisitive cult.

      The Orly Owl began as an online photograph, and is known for his “inquisitive nature” towards generally everything.

      Recently, cult members have adopted the owl as a mascot.

      Although there have been no reported sightings of the image on the Central Coast, individuals dressed in the owl costume and car decals have been seen in Southern California.

      Local law enforcement cautions parents to be aware of the image, particularly at public events. For concerns about the image, contact the Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement division of the sheriff’s department at 805-781-4550.

    4. Mother of fuck, how can there be a such a thing a full retard when their seems to be no end or limit to that resource?

      1. okay, maybe I’m this close to winning a Darwin myself, but sweet jesus of the palms, man that beats us all.

  34. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Pedobear

    Pedobear or also P?dobear aka Roy Harms is one of the more famous and long running 4chan memes. He actually originated from 2channel (2?????, ni channeru, 2ch for short), Japanese Internet forum, where he was called Kuma (???), literally “Bear”. Some argue the Japanese omitted the “Pedo-” prefix to avoid redundancy since most anything churned out in Japan is assumed to promote pedophilia.

    1. I’m pretty sure that’s all wrong.

      Pedobear was based on a Japanese public service cartoon character “Safety Bear” who promoted child safety, but looked creepy enough to American eyes that he was cast as a closet pedophile himself.

      1. I’ve never heard of Pedo Bear but it was clearly BS presented as news to me…except for how it seemed so unreal as to be a joke.

      2. Nah, he comes from ASCII art. The backstory was filled in later, regardless of what any English source says. Here’s his first appearance in a thread of 1000 people posting ASCII art bears.

        Kuma’s only advocacy is to remind people of the switch from analog to digital cable in 2011.

        1. The Safety Bear story makes more sense. And the resemblance can’t possibly be coincidental.

          1. It doesn’t matter what makes sense, these are the facts. You’d be amazed/disappointed at the enormous number of ASCII art characters from an anonymous message board that have made their way into popular culture in Japan.

            I know it’s a blog post, but here’s a Japanese discussion about Westerners perception of Pedobear and his origins. Here’s my translation about Safety Bear:

            [Know Your Meme is] a popular internet meme aggregation site.

            Here, it says that 4chan imported “Safety Bear” from 2chan (without specifying whether it’s 2channel or Futaba). The article claims that the Safety Bear bumper sticker, a derivative of Kuma, is “the original.” Hell no.

            Because the article’s written based on information from secondhand sources like the Toronto Sun, it has issues.

            It also mentions Pedobear’s brother-in-arms, Y?kanman (Little Girl Rape Man; yes, the language can be quite efficient), and how Liberal Democratic Party Mona morphed into a character that repeats “Saitama” (a city/prefecture north of Tokyo) endlessly.

            And there’s an English-language post here about his origins a bit over halfway down.

      3. Good grief, you slack jaw, in what context would that entry into a satirical encyclopedia not be considered a joke? Little slow are you?

  35. ‘Marijuana increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent

    Isn’t that supposed to be a benefit of aerobic exercise?


    1. Pretty much, yes, with the usual unnecessary caution about seeing your doctor before beginning a program of exercise.

  36. Marijuana causes short-term memory loss for some people. It is evident if a person is marijuana user because there is an increase in mistakes. For example, it is highly suspicious for YOUNG workers to have short-term memory problems like they are senile.
    If you encounter a cashier, server or waiter/waitress who are doing the following, then it is evident that they are pot users.
    1. Forgetting the orders such as what exactly was ordered after repeating the order to them several times.
    2. Giving the order to the wrong customer.
    3. Giving the bill to the wrong customer.
    4. Forgetting to enter the order into the system, so the cooks can prepare the order.
    5. Asking the same questions again and again even though the question was already answered.
    This is happening right now. Very young workers with short-term memory problems because they are habitual pot users. Therefore, marijuana is not safe if the person is impaired by it. If you have a YOUNG worker who is forgetful, it is time for a drug test.

    1. People ask me if I remember anything from the 70s and 80s. Well, I certainly can’t remember anything since then.

      1. I hate to break it to you, but you’re DEAD.

        1. That explains a lot.

    2. Ahhh, don’t take those, man. I almost gave you wrong shit.

    3. Yes young people, you suck at work. You must be high.

      What is this bizarre ageism nonsense? I don’t think this clown is qualified to make sap diagnoses.

      Sheesh,.. ridiculous.

    4. Here’s an idea. Fire the son-of-a-bitch. Problem solved. Amazing, I just saved you money for a piss test.

    5. America’s youth, are they high, or do they just not give a shit? Tonight on Geraldo.

  37. The Powers That Be will NEVER give us back The Plant unless we all yell long enough, and hard enough, without letup.
    They, they’ll get tired of the fight and cave in. That’s what happened with the OTHER prohibition.

  38. This doesn’t bother me. There are what, 5 papers represented in this article. So between them, there are what, maybe 40 possible readers.

  39. Has the Register made an endorsement?

    Regardless, I’d like to find one person anywhere at anytime who’s voted based on a newspaper endorsement.

  40. Just like the gay community began outing people who vocally opposed gay rights those in the know need to “out” the politicians and media types who take or took drugs and publicly oppose drug rights.

    They gave up their right to privacy when they began attacking the rights of others. They no longer have rights.

  41. Why should a state that sees fit to ban foie gras, trans fats, horsemeat, lightbulbs and plastic bags (not quite) NOT ban pot?

      1. What’s the point? Should the state start banning gummy worms? My kids eat those and they are more disgusting to me than the travails of domesticated water fowl.

  42. You know. What I will be glad about when weed is finally legal, is the convenience. I am so sick of having to go through a dude who knows a dude who knows a dude. IMHO, potential velocity of that cash could better be unleashed if it where in the hands of say Circle-K.
    And has weed’s DNA been sequenced? For christ sake, can’t we get a strain that grows like a sequoia and drops big, seedless, very misty buds the size of a bowling ball? Can we get a czar for that?

    1. I like the way you think.

    2. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

      1. only if you have a beer with me.

    3. We totally need a czar. I mean, they have a fucking czar for Asian Carp.

      1. I’m starting to think Obama appoints a czar whenever he doesn’t knwo what the fuck he’s doing.

        Don’t know anything about X? Don’t give a shit? Fuck I’ll appooint someone who has the powers of me, but isn’t me. That guy over there, he seems smart, let him take care of it. I’ll just make him a czar, sit back, and let him do whatever he wants while I ignore the entire thing.

    4. “The Potential Velocity of Cash.”

      Great band name, or possible best-selling economics text book?

  43. I suppose it just doesn’t occur to these maroons that states (particularly powerful ones like CA) can push back against federal overreach and win. Or maybe they just think that states should shut up and follow orders.

    1. I have been wanting to see CA push back against federal overreach on many fronts for a couple of decades, now. We don’t seem to elect people with much intestinal fortitude. Some people had high hopes for Schwarzenegger, but he seems dedicated to getting as much out of the Feds as he can, rather than locking horns with them on constitutional issues. It is the case that CA is a net contributor of federal funds, rather than a net recipient, so he has a point and I understand his priorities. Still, it would be nice for the Great State of California to have someone to stand up to Uncle Sam and, yes, even win.

  44. Hey, it is not like reporters ever actually get busted for drugs. It is just poor and brown people who ever get busted. And then getting busted just keeps them in line and also gives reporters stories to write.

    You want the media to come out against the drug war, stop running under cover stings in the ghetto and start running them in newsrooms. Let a few reporters do some time.

    1. Andrew Sullivan got busted for drug possession, so the rule of law does work.

      Oh, wait…

    2. I didn’t realize reporters wrote the editorials, I thought they had editors for that.

      If I’m right about that, editorial independence might be an issue.

      1. Editors are just experienced reports. Reporters become editors. I gaurentee you that just as many editors have done drugs as reporters. It is all the same pool.

  45. Yeah lets keep it the way it is, it’s not like we’re wasting money arresting people for doing something harmless, or Mexican Drug Lords are kidnapping or killing people… oh wait that’s exactly whats happening

  46. A major problem with the Federal law[s] is that in the mid-Fifties marijuana – and by extension hemp products such as ropes/lines for sailing – was put in the severest total-ban section as having “no medical use.” This is still the case despote several succeeding decades of medical uses for extracts (or manufactured duplicates), and even for marijuana itself.

    As to State legalization, yes, that may conflict with Federal – but is that a reason for, as one of the cited pieces says should be done, leaving it entirely it to Federal government? There are Federal laws against robbing banks – so why does the State also have laws against robbing banks? Heck, why not do the same with rubbish collection? Why have any non-Federal law at all?

    1. I seem remember some SCOTUS case law that said that the rights in the Constitution were a “floor.” That this “floor” no government could fall below: state or federal. And that States could always grant(not a good word, I know) more.

    2. Remember also that medicine has traditionally been up to the States to regulate. The Federal prescription-authority power grab via the Controlled Substances Act and the establishment of Medicare, HIPAA, and Obamacare, are all unconstitutional incursions upon State authority, which squeeze, and often chase, States out of areas that ought to be covered by the 10th Amendment.

  47. From the article: “The questions about whether or not marijuana use leads to heavier drug use don’t have to be answered definitively.”

    That’s slick. Smear pot use by associating it with harder stuff, then say the question doesn’t have to be answered!

    I missed it when the author applied that standard to alcohol.

    Thought experiment: divide everyone into two groups, drinkers and tee-totalers. Now, which group has a higher percentage of pot smokers? Coke, meth, heroin, etc? Is there any recreational drug non-drinkers use more than drinkers?

    No. And since apparently correlation now equals causation, we’ve proven drinking leads to harder drugs.

    So ban it too, or drop that argument.

    Statist beyotch.

    1. Years ago it was rumored — “common knowledge” in certain quarters — that recreational opiate users couldn’t appreciate liquor.

  48. I have to assume these editorials almost exactly reflect identical sentiments expressed by the editorials of the day during the original prohibition. These people are too stupid to see they are identical those imbeciles who promoted alcohol prohibition.

  49. Funny that when it’s stuff like smog testing, funding for stem cell research, “green jobs,” etc., they support it because California is supposed to be the vanguard that leads the rest of the nation forward.

  50. Watching California’s Newspapers Line Up Against Legalizing the Pot That 90% of Their Employees Have Smoked

    This statement is all that needs to be said about the uphill battle that any marijuana legalization fight faces.

  51. “we support the current state policy of classifying marijuana use as a low-grade crime and of allowing its use for those whose doctors suggest it for legitimate medical reasons

    Ha! Fuck you I told you so.

    Fucking liberals. They don’t want legalized marijuana, they want medicalized marijuana. Because if it’s medicalized, the state still has control over who puts what substances in their body. And there’s nothing a liberal loves more than to put institutions between doctors and their patients.

    1. And there’s nothing a liberal loves more than to put institutions between doctors and their patients.

      Fuck doctors and patients. How about individuals and the substances they wish to consume or medical services they want and can pay for?

      Just last week, I fucking had to lie to my doctor and say my dad had diabetes to get her to authorize a blood test for it. It’s not like I’m a hypochondriac either; this is the first time I’d gotten any medical services or doctor visits in well over a year. And then she sits me down and gives me a talk about diabetes and the link to obesity and all the other shit that could have easily been authored by a high school freshman who spent 30 minutes surfing the web for information on diabetes while listening to Lady Gaga and doing her nails.

  52. As for ‘Bonus Random Statism’ conflicting with Federal Government, that comes from “Federal Government Good, Obama in Charge!”

  53. Well, I realize that this a bit towards the bottom, but Mary O’Grady has a great article in Mondays Opinion Journal. Also, we are not talking California rather El Paso Texas.


  54. No wonder the “Newspapers” don’t like prop 19. It was a newspaper mogol Randolph Hurst who started the racist big oil big Government Marijuana Prohibition SCAM to begin with. I guess they are still loyal to the failure of 1937. No wonder newspapers are going the way of steam engines and trolley cars.

  55. Another reason newspapers don’t need a bail-out and should go the way of the dinosaurs.

  56. I did not read thru all of the article or comments, so this may have been covered. First hand experience with employees-Have them using power tools could be a disaster. Loss of limb or life. Fortunately it did not happen, but two different people at vastly different times, came close. Who would have had to pay for this, of course me or my business. So for their and my protection, pot users will never work at our business. So go ahead and make it legal, job market for those people will be reduced. Just a fact.

  57. “The point is there’s no compelling reason to legalize the drug for recreational use.”

    Sure there is, its called “recreation.”

  58. I’ll give you compelling ******* reason: victimless crime. You think people getting tickets/arrested for something VICTIMLESS and RECREATIONAL is right? It groups marijuana with harder drugs. You think people go to their drug dealer asking to buy some alcohol? “gateway drug” yeah, thanks prohibition. It’s not dangerous to your health any more than cigarettes or alcohol, and probably even less. There’s no hangover. It’s not debilitating, you can still function normal if needed. Guess what, I’ve driven more hours in my life high than sober. Never been in 1 accident in my life. Be afraid, be very afraid. There is NOTHING you can say to pot that can’t be applied to and made 10x worse by booze.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.