Drug War

Josh Marshall Is in His 40s Now, So Pot Prohibition Suddenly Makes Sense

|

Josh Marshall, who confesses that he did not really pay attention to Proposition 19 until after the election, says he "probably would have voted against it" for "two reasons." Reason No. 1:

Unless I'm missing something, it amounts to nullification. The federal government seems like the competent authority to regulate this question, even if I think our drug policy is a disaster. Federal laws trump state laws, even when you don't like them.

Yes, Josh, you are missing something. First, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to ban the intrastate production and sale of any intoxicant (or any other product), which is why alcohol prohibitionists went to all the trouble involved in passing the 18th Amendment. Second, even if you accept the absurdly broad reading of the Commerce Clause that led the Supreme Court to uphold federal enforcement of marijuana prohibition in states that authorize medical use of the drug, the Court has never held that states must duplicate every law Congress passes. State legislators have no obligation to punish everything that Congress declares a crime. Even during alcohol prohibition, some states either never passed their own versions of the Volstead Act or decided to repeal them before the 21st Amendment was ratified.

Here is Marshall's Reason No. 2 for probably voting against a ballot initiative he did not give much thought to until after it was defeated:

I just don't know if I think marijuana should be legalized at all. Maybe it's that I'm getting into my 40s. And maybe I'm a hypocrite. I of course know people who smoke grass. And I don't have any problem with it. Decriminalized? Yes, I think probably so. But that's not the same as legalization. It's very different actually. And let me be clear that I think our drug laws are catastrophic. They create endemic violence first in our major cities and now along the borders and it's led to generations of Americans rotting in prison. The whole war on drugs is an unmitigated disaster. And the fact that people can't use marijuana for clear medical reasons is crazy. But do I think it should be like alcohol? Anyone over 18 or 21 can buy it?

I remember, many years ago, talking to my father about the idea of legalization. And bear in mind, my Dad, God bless him, smoked a decent amount of grass in his day, said he didn't like the idea. One reason is that he was already a bit older by that time. But he had this very contradictory and hard to rationalize position which was that he was fine with people smoking pot but keeping it at least nominally illegal kept public usage in some check. Again, how to rationalize that in traditional civic terms? Not really sure. But frankly, I think I kind of agree.

To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure you can call this a reason. Marshall's inarticulate resistance to legalization is especially maddening became he claims to agree that "our drug laws are catastrophic," leading to black market violence and unjust incarceration. Neither of those problems can be solved through "decriminalization," which in the U.S. typically means letting users off with a modest fine instead of jail time. As long as supplying users with the drugs they want remains illegal, the violence and incarceration will continue. And under what moral theory do people who smoke pot deserve little or no punishment, while people who merely help them do so deserve to spend years in prison? I cannot fathom how anyone, let alone a self-identified critic of the war on drugs, can suggest that such an outrageous violation of liberty is justified to guard people's sensibilities by keeping "public usage in check." And I'm in my 40s too, so I'm not accepting that excuse.

Marshall's complacency may stem from a sense that marijuana basically has been decriminalized already. After all, his friends aren't getting busted for pot. Yet last year more than 858,000 Americans were, and they were disproportionately members of minority groups—the sort of unequal legal treatment that usually bothers progressives.

NEXT: Reason TV: Brian Doherty Explains The Failure of Prop 19 and What it Means for the Future of Pot Legalization

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. “Unless I’m missing something, it amounts to nullification“.

    Oh, my God!!! Nullification!!!! Neo-confederatism!! Slavery is back!!

    The federal government seems like the competent authority to regulate this question[.]

    Because us, the rubes, the peasants, the serfs, are incompetent.

    Speak for yourself, Josh.

    Fucking moron.

  2. That’s some world-class doofunditry right there.

    1. It’s also probably exactly why Prop 19 didn’t pass. As execrable as Marshall is, the one thing that article gave us was most likely the thought process going through the heads of a ton of “no” voters on Prop 19.

      1. There were a number of other idiotic articles from liberals making exactly those two points.

        What kind of an idiot leftist do you have to be to hate federalism to the point that you insist that a state pass laws against everything that the feds do?

        1. Re: John Thacker,

          Eleutherophobic authoritarians know no principles.

          They may only pay lip service to the idea of “personal freedoms,” but they don’t really mean it.

        2. “”What kind of an idiot leftist do you have to be to hate federalism to the point that you insist that a state pass laws against everything that the feds do?””

          Everything? That’s a stretch.

          The Feds passed a law mandating health care (feds do healthcare), I don’t have a problem with states passing a law against it. Does that make me a liberal?

          1. Huh? I see that my grammar my have been unclear. “to hate federalism to the point that you insist that a state pass laws against everything that the feds [pass laws against]” is what I meant. I thought that the semantics would be clear, since hating federalism would obviously mean wanting the states to be exactly the same as the feds and not disagree.

            The Feds passed a law mandating health care (feds do healthcare), I don’t have a problem with states passing a law against it. Does that make me a liberal?

            No, you’ve misunderstood entirely. Having no problem with the states disagreeing with the feds makes you not a liberal. A liberal would insist that the states follow the feds exactly.

            1. Except in the case of the Arizona immigration law issue, the liberals (in the form of Obama’s Justice department) are arguing that the state government is acting unconstitutionally by attempting to enforce federal immigration law.

        3. Leftists seem to have no problem with states bucking the feds in legalizing gay marriage.

          1. They also think that there should be no issue as to personally controlling with no government intrusion what comes out of your body, but that the state should control what goes in it.

  3. Neither of those problems [black market violence and unjust incarceration] can be solved through “decriminalization,” which in the U.S. typically means letting users off with a modest fine instead of jail time. As long as supplying users with the drugs they want remains illegal, the violence and incarceration will continue.

    Fuckin-A. Well said.

  4. “I just don’t know if I think marijuana should be legalized at all. Maybe it’s that I’m an authoritarian asshole.”

    FTFY

  5. I just… want to kick this man in the balls. Over and over again. Until he cries.

    1. He can get in line behind Bill Mahr.

      1. Oh wait, nevermind. Since there will be two lines (the kickers and the kickees) we can setup some sort of ballkicking array.

    2. Did you know that there’s a small cohort of perverts who actually enjoy getting the family jewels kicked and punched? As incomprehensible as the idea is, there are women who make a living providing this service. Anyway, just thought you’d like to make sure you don’t end up giving him pleasure in your quest to inflict pain. If you’ve got a case of trainwreck rubbernecking and want to learn more, the broad category is CBT. Just google the acronym but be warned, it hurts me just to see it happening, and there’s actually significantly more perverted insanity in that little corner of the wide world of perverts.

  6. Federal laws trump state laws, even when you don’t like them.

    No, you stupid statist moron – if the States don’t like them, they have the right to NULLIFY them, as they have done MANY TIMES throughout the history of the U.S., starting with the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

    It is the concept of nullification which made me such a fan of the USA.

    1. But but but, slavery and healthcare are different than EvilDrugs!

  7. He (and others like Yglesias and Klein) don’t have opinions, they just come up with rationalizations disguised as opinions for supporting the Obama/Democratic Party status quo.

    1. Yup. And what a shitty rationalization this one turned out to be.

      1. Actually I’d say it is about par for a course where all the doglegs bend left.

    2. Some people like to feel like they’re on a team.

      The world would be better if they would choose a bowling team over TEAM RED!/BLUE!

  8. To tell you the truth, I’m not even sure you can call this a reason.

    I drank! for each of his “reasons”, as per the rules.

  9. That’s so stupid I think Josh must be considering a run for elective office.

    1. He’s got the right elitist mindset, with his “it’s okay if my friends and family do it but everybody else should be fucking busted” attitude.

      1. I am reminded of the comercial in the 70’s where the announcer asks a hip young black guy if he smoked weed. “Yeh, I get high sometimes with my friends.” The announcer then asks what he’d do if he caught his little sister smoking weed. “I’D BREAK HER HEAD!”

        1. Fuck that shit. Seriously. That and the whole getting older storyline. I mean really? Because I’m 52, and if anything I’ve become increasingly pro legalization as I’ve gotten older. Life is too fucking short to worry about whether someone else might be having too much fun. And the little sister bit? I have kids. They smoke pot. How much does this bother me? Well, I gave my youngest one Sullum’s Saying Yes for her 19th birthday.

          So yeah, I wouldn’t call anything Marshall says a “reason.”

          1. Life is too fucking short to worry about whether someone else might be having too much fun.

            Yes, to a neo-Puritan life is indeed too short to ensure that no one is having any fun.

            1. That too.

  10. Good god! Is there any doubt that a system which allows this man to vote on things that affect my life is a terrible system?

  11. Good god! Is there any doubt this man should have no say whatsover on anything to do with public policy. The system which allows him to vote on my fate is a total FAIL.

  12. I’d have deservedly gotten an F in high school forensics with an argument like that.

    1. The people making that argument are in charge.

      1. Therefore the argument is sound.

        1. Soundness is irrelevant. Having the guns, the judges, the legislators and the jails is the only relevant factor.

          1. This.

            And enough authoritarian fucktards of all political shades to keep the LE Welfare state alive and jumping with business.

    2. But an A in Mississippi coroner forensics with that kind of evidence, as Radley has demonstrated.

      1. Or in Arkansas. An Arkansas corner ruled two kids smokes so much pot they laid down on train tracks and didn’t hear the train coming before it ran over them.

        1. I moved to that town not long after that happened. That was…a while ago.

        2. Ok, let’s say that’s technically possible – how much pot would they have had to have smoked?

          Sounds fun.

  13. Who the fuck is Josh Marshall? And fuck him. In his forties? I’m right there. Aren’t you suppose to become a little wiser and more tolerant as you get older. Sure, I’m a little more set in my ways, but I have become utterly less and less concerned with how other people behave, so long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s individual rights.

    This dude is an idiot. Hell, I don’t know why more people don’t make the argument for increased usage. I know quite a few uptight assholes that would benefit immensely from smoking a joint from time to time.

    1. Who the fuck is Josh Marshall?

      I too wondered this….turns out he’s a Professional Blogger. That’s it. So, why the fuck do we even care? (It’s good practice, i know, i know.)

      1. “Marshall married Millet Israeli in March 2005”

        Wow. Now I’m confused about why he’s not Josh Marshal-Israeli.

        1. well played, wylie. well played.

      2. I wasted some energy: he is the founder of TPM. Like I said, fuck that ass clown.

    2. Who the fuck is Josh Marshall?

      I was just going to ask the same thing.

      You beat me to it.

      Fucker.

      1. This is a bad habit of reason – promoting the vacuous talking head leftie du jour: first the Naomi’s, then Ezra Klein, now Marshall.

  14. Holy shit. This guy is the guy I’ve been arguing with in my head for the last decade. I feel so much better now.

  15. The crazy part here is that most of us non-leftists are not surprised by this in the least. The left doesn’t care about individual rights, they want to control every single aspect of everyones lives.

    For our own good.

    This is the part where guys like MNG who are teetering towards dumping leftist ideals will see the light at the end of tunnel. It’s what did it for me. Once I realized that the left couldn’t give two shits about individual liberty if said liberty interfered with their master plans I was done.

    And Liberaltarians? Get a fucking clue please.

  16. I just don’t know if I think marijuana should be legalized at all. Maybe it’s that I’m getting into my 40s. And maybe I’m a hypocrite. …

    Statements like that are why I support the immediate abolition of Social Security.

  17. What I mean to say is, y’know, pot, right? I mean, people smoke it, and they’re gonna smoke it, you know? Even if it is illegal, or whatever. But does that really mean that we need to, like, stop ruining people’s lives when they, like, aren’t hurting anyone? I don’t know. I don’t think so.

    I mean, my dad smoked some weed, and he was a huge hypocrite about it. But he also bought me a car when I graduated from high school. Would a dad from the ghetto do that for his kid who dealt pot? I don’t think so. They should both be in jail for the better part of their lives. I think that makes sense, don’t you?

    Do you see where I’m going with this? I mean, I think it’s pretty clear.

  18. It sounds like this knucklehead (and his Dad; apparently stupid runs in his family) are part of that dumbass crowd that believes that if something isn’t illegal then “society” is “encouraging” it.

    1. What’s worse is that it isn’t that encouragement, but that legal=government encouragement.

      As if we need to look to the government as a moral authority.

      This is exactly why “Why I’m not a Conservative” was written. Both liberals and so-cons are just fine with authoritarian governments, so long as The Right People? have the authority.

      Fuck them.

  19. Unless I’m missing something, it amounts to nullification. The federal government seems like the competent authority to regulate this question

    He is. I’m guessing in this case he wants the exact opposite of what he wants re the Arizona immigration law: local enforcement and state law matching federal law.

  20. i don’t have a clue who that statist clown is but if Reason ever dumbs the site down by posting his authoritarian bullshit again i’m cancelling my subscription.

    1. DRINK!!!

      1. That’s 2 drinks! because of the handle it was posted under.

    2. I don’t know if you noticed, Ginny, but the Reason blog challenges the authoritarian position of the post.

      Is it dumbing down to present the opposing argument first?

  21. How far up his ass must his head be to publish something like that? What a dick.

  22. Guess he never had any friends killed in a drunk driving incident.

  23. It reminds me of this passage in King Lear:

    Fool – If thou wert my fool, nuncle, I’ld have thee beaten for being old before thy time.

    KING LEAR – How’s that?

    Fool – Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise.

    1. Josh Marshall is undeserving of Shakespearean references, and probably incapable of understanding them, unless may his Dad explained it to him.

      Other than that, well played indeed!

  24. And for an equally intelligent, supporting viewpoint, we have Mr. Mackey:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbExvU42q4

  25. Who the fuck is Josh Marshall, and why should we care about one more hypocrite?

    -jcr

    1. TPM guy. Second only to Kos in internet left-land.

      THIS IS THE “SOCIALLY LIBERAL” YOU LIKE TO GO WITH YOUR “FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

      We’re ALL libertarians now thank Aqua Buddha.

    2. He’s nobody, but he represents perfectly the repugnant viewpoint of a group of prop 19 opponents that was probably large enough that it would have changed the outcome of the election if it had voted from a moral standpoint. Therefore, his viewpoint is worth commenting on and refuting.

  26. When we legalize mj, will that mean we can smoke it or tobacco on planes and in bars?

    But then again, since we are moving towards de facto prohibition of tobacco but towards legalization of marijuana, will there be a point when the streams cross and we can smoke marijuana but not tobacco?

    Or is all this just crazy talk?

    1. “You said crossing the streams was bad.”

      I’d imagine the same limitations would be put on marijuana as currently is on tobacco.

  27. Marshall is the Jonah Goldberg of Progressivism.

  28. Who the fuck is Josh Marshall (besides an obvious moron, I mean)?

  29. Are there any states which have a law criminalizing evasion of Federal income tax? Has anyone ever been tried for evasion of Federal income tax in state court.

  30. As a 61 year old who has been against the war on drugs and for legalization for over 30 years, I am really puzzled by the idea of aging into thinking like this guy does. It is so tragically wrong to continue these policies, and I hope I will actually see a change someday. Disappointed about Prop 19.

    1. JBrown, I am 50, and can state with certainty that the cohort of people who are my age are significantly less in favor of cannabis legalization than they were when I was, umm, oh say 21. OK, might not be age that’s the major contributing factor, it might have more to do with the systematic program of lies that the Feds launched around 1982 and have since promoted continuously. I also know a substantial percentage of the same cohort still enjoy cannabis but would never admit it in public. Some would barely consider acknowledging it in private but have no choice if they don’t want to actually quit.

      It it reality that when a person becomes a parent that there is a change in the chemical makeup of his or her brain. The propagandists understand this clearly, it’s why they promote the canard of cannabis being some ridiculous order of magnitude more potent that the ‘pretend pot’ that the hippies were smoking in the 1960. That canard specifically developed to enable people to override that which they have seen with their own eyes, and is specifically designed to target people who are now parents as the combination of needing to keep their children safe along with no longer being part of the cannabis community makes them susceptible to this particular red herring fallacy. Panama Red was some pretty legendary stuff. One of my biggest gaffes in life was in not keeping those genetics. It’s funny because it was pretty much standard to find a huge jar or bag of seeds in the belongings of a pothead in the 1970s. Don’t ask me why we kept our seeds around back then, I did it myself and still can’t explain it. The common ‘wisdom’ of that time was that cannabis couldn’t be potent unless grown near the equator.

      Consider the possibility that you are misinformed if you think people didn’t have 10% cannabis in the past. They dug up a man in China who was buried with a couple of pounds of cannabis among other artifacts and it tested at 14.5% 2800 years later. I not aware if they’ve yet explained why a blond haired Caucasian was getting high on cannabis in China almost 1000 years before the birth of Christ.

      I don’t think Don Bowman was aware that the pot in 1964 was basically a placebo.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-Ws6PAeLI

      I’m not sure that Cab Calloway thought the cannabis in 1933 was just a pretend high.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svoSSdsNhtA

      Oh, we’re not talking about the 30s or the 60s? OK, then do you think that in 1971 the New Riders of the Purple Sage thought their cannabis to be a look alike drug?
      (only allowed 2 links go to you tube and watch watch?v=uyPYM5uUViI if you want to hear an opinion of cannabis potency in 1971)

      Unfortunately it’s now pointless to search all the joints in town for Panama Red. I guess I need to hire a mule to go fetch some from Panama.

      Let’s not even discuss the hashish that was available back then. Somehow I don’t think that Fitz Hugh Ludlow was aware that it was the power of suggestion that got him high when he wrote “The Hasheesh Eater” in 1857. Neither were the people who frequented the hasheesh parlors that New York had in abundance in the mid 1800s. Believe it or not there is a significant number of people who believe that cannabis wasn’t invented until 1964 when an unholy alliance of the Beatles and Bob Dylan introduced cannabis to the world. Then in 1980 Cheech & Chong developed the new super potent ‘skunk’ or ‘BC Bud’ making so that people actually get high from cannabis consumption.

      Nah, people haven’t been consuming cannabis products and extracts for more than 5000 years. Yeah, right.

  31. To all these people who are saying “who the fuck is Josh Marshall?”:

    If you’re speaking figuratively, that’s fine.

    If you’re speaking literally, then that’s startling, and perhaps you should consider moving out of your echo chamber. To consider oneself politically literate on the internet and not have heard of Josh Marshall indicates an unwillingness to listen to or even be aware of viewpoints that differ from your own. You may not agree with a single thing he has to say, but it’s a good idea to know that he’s saying it and that millions of people are reading his blogging empire each day.

  32. I am sure we have all heard of Talking Points Memo, but who “gives a fuck” about Josh Marshall is more to the point… I guess.

  33. this man is shit.

  34. Mr Sullum,

    Please explain.

    The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to punish in three specific instances. If it was necessary to grant these three authorities, which includes punishment for treason, from where do the other powers to punish arise?

    Have you read Marbury v Madison?

    How does the current expansion of the Commerce Clause mesh with the statement that any reading/interpretation of one clause of the Constitution that negates another clause is an incorrect reading/interpretation?

    From MvM(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html):

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]”

  35. While bullets fly into El Paso, bodies pile up in the streets of Juarez, and thugs with gold-plated AK-47s and albino tiger pens are beheading federal officials and dissolving their torsos in vats of acid, here are some facts concerning the peaceful situation in Holland. –Please save a copy and use it as a reference when debating prohibitionists who claim the exact opposite concerning reality as presented here below:

    Cannabis-coffee-shops are not only restricted to the Capital of Holland, Amsterdam. They can be found in more than 50 cities and towns across the country. At present, only the retail sale of five grams is tolerated, so production remains criminalized. The mayors of a majority of the cities with coffeeshops have long urged the national government to also decriminalize the supply side.

    A poll taken earlier this year indicated that some 50% of the Dutch population thinks cannabis should be fully legalized while only 25% wanted a complete ban. Even though 62% of the voters said they had never taken cannabis. An earlier poll also indicated 80% opposing coffee shop closures.

    It is true that the number of coffee shops has fallen from its peak of around 2,500 throughout the country to around 700 now. The problems, if any, concern mostly marijuana-tourists and are largely confined to cities and small towns near the borders with Germany and Belgium. These problems, mostly involve traffic jams, and are the result of cannabis prohibition in neighboring countries. Public nuisance problems with the coffee shops are minimal when compared with bars, as is demonstrated by the rarity of calls for the police for problems at coffee shops.

    While it is true that lifetime and past-month use rates did increase back in the seventies and eighties, the critics shamefully fail to report that there were comparable and larger increases in cannabis use in most, if not all, neighboring countries which continued complete prohibition.

    According to the World Health Organization only 19.8 percent of the Dutch have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure.
    In Holland 9.7% of young adults (aged 15 to 24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%). Few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the compared countries.

    The WHO survey of 17 countries finds that the United States has the highest usage rates for nearly all illegal substances.

    In the U.S. 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana. The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the U.S. again leading the world by a large margin.

    Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana. Again, the U.S. led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in Holland, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15 — roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.

    In 1998, the US Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey claimed that the U.S. had less than half the murder rate of the Netherlands. That’s drugs, he explained. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics immediately issued a special press release explaining that the actual Dutch murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, or less than one-quarter the U.S. murder rate.

    Here is a very recent article by a psychiatrist from Amsterdam, exposing Drug Czar misinformation
    http://tinyurl.com/247a8mp

    The indicators of death, disease and corruption are even much better in the Netherlands than in Sweden for instance, a country praised by UNODC for its so called successful drug policy.

    The Netherlands also provides heroin on prescription under tight regulation to about 1500 long-term heroin addicts for whom methadone maintenance treatment has failed.

    The Dutch justice ministry announced, last year, the closure of eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty. There’s simply not enough criminals.

    For further information, kindly check out this very informative FAQ provided by Radio Netherlands: http://www.rnw.nl/english/arti…..etherlands

  36. Advocating a continued increase in mayhem & tyranny solely for the purpose of guarding one’s own ill-thought-through sensibilities is both despicable and unconscionable.

    If you support prohibition then you’ve helped trigger the worst crime wave in history, raising gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

    If you support prohibition you’ve a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped to prevent the sick and dying from obtaining safe and effective medication.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped escalate the number of people on welfare who can’t find employment due to their felony status.

    If you support prohibition you’re responsible for the horrific racial disparities which have breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans.

    If you support prohibition you’ve helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

    If you support prohibition you’re promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

    Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a “Drug-Free Society” is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition’s ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

    Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, corrupt or criminally insane.

    If you support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, foreclosed homes, and the complete loss of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.

    1. Pretty harsh, Malcolm Kyle…

      And dead on accurate.

      Prohibition of earth’s most beneficial plant is the prime abomination. When the law itself is a crime, nothing but ill consequences can follow. The proof is in every night’s news!

  37. Long story short,
    YES Josh, you ARE (without a doubt) a hypocrite…
    Oh and as for this bit – “Not really sure. But frankly, I think I kind of agree.”
    To me that shows you have no business writing about this…
    Until can you figure out how to stand on Both sides of an issue simultaneously = to be “OK with pot-smoking” with the people from whom you seemingly want approval from – AND somehow still “cover-your-ass”, politically speaking, among your more conservative friends/colleagues/etc.

    Two-faced reasoning FTW Mr. Marshall ?!?!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.