Welcome to Marijuana on Main Street, USA!'s Special Page About Legalizing Pot!


As subscribers to the print and electronic edition of Reason already know, the latest issue is all about "Marijuana on Main Street: The long, hard road to safe, legal pot."

Subscribers receive the magazine weeks before any of its content shows up here at Subscribe for just $14.97 a year for the print edition and even less for Kindle, Nook, and iPad versions. Not only will you be ahead of the curve, you'll be supporting our work at the planet's only magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets." 

We're also happy to point all of you right now to a special online landing page that includes all the relevant stories from the new issue of Reason plus another half-dozen of stories and videos about the difficulties in shifting out of the failed drug war and into a post-prohibitionist America.

Among the offerings:

  • Jacob Sullum's cover story about how Washington state's pot regulators are trying to bend the law of supply abd demand to their whims.
  • What counts as drugged driving? And what financial institutions will accept money from legal marijuana business in Colorado and Washington?
  • 10 Really Successful Potheads. (You'll never guess who's number one.)
  • Watch the feature-length, award-winning Reason TV documentary, America's Longest War: A Film About the Drug War.
  • Best online tools for evaluating legal weed.
  • California's continuing crackdown on medical marijuana.
  • William S. Burroughs' drug-fueled anti-authoritarianism.
  • Our archive of our the very best pot-related articles and videos that we can remember.

There's plenty more at our special landing page for "Marijuana on Main Street."

Please like the page on Facebook and Google +, tweet it to your friends (and enemies), and range around the contents.

And if the spirit moves you, subscribe to your preferred version of Reason.

NEXT: Brazil Prepares for World Cup by Seizing Homes, Chasing Vendors Away; Protesters Respond With a World Cup of Their Own

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “10 Really Success Potheads. (You’ll never guess who’s number one.)”

    The H&R Web Editor?

    1. Japanese game show! Really Success Pothead!

      Contestant perform challenge great magnitude! Hilarity abundance! Housepet now make convenient marijuana consumption aid!

      1. Awesome. I’ve never even heard of Brass Eye before. Now I’ll spend the afternoon tracking down episodes. Thanks!

        1. O.M.G.

          it is one of the greatest things ever of all time.

        2. Example of why Brass Eye is the greatest thing of all time =

          From ‘Animals‘ episode:

          “The Evil in the man/animal relationship remains a paradox: if you plot ‘number of animals abused’ against, ‘what makes humans cruel’, versus ‘intelligence of either party’, the pattern is so unreadable you might as well draw in a chain of fox-heads on sticks; and if you do that, an interesting thing happens: The Word Cruel Starts Flashing.”

  2. Is it printed on hemp like the Declaration of Independence?

  3. Related: Maureen Dowd goes full temperance on legal marijuana.…..inion&_r=1

    But remember, progressives are all about science and rationality.

    1. Holy fuck, what a dimwit.

      Did those incidents she described actually happen? That would’ve been plastered all over the news by anti-pot blocs. (I guess one could do a search…)

      1. As Jack Healy reported in The Times on Sunday, Colorado hospital officials “are treating growing numbers of children and adults sickened by potent doses of edible marijuana” and neighboring states are seeing more stoned drivers.

        No, she uses a typical “two anecdotes =trend” scare story and…nothing as her support for these assertions.

      2. Did those incidents she described actually happen? That would’ve been plastered all over the news by anti-pot blocs.

        Patrick Kennedy will be posting this as breaking news sometime in 2017.

      3. Accidentally overdoing it on edibles can be an unlikely,easing experience. She nay also be given to hyperbole in recounting said experiences.

    2. Check the comments for the genius who says that he consumed ‘an ounce of THC’ in a single pot brownie.

      1. That would redefine the term “unpleasantly high”.

        1. I guess ingesting it is the only way a person can o.d. on mj.

          But if you eat an entire tray of brownies, you have other issues besides being a drug fiend.

          1. Yeah! You’re probably out of milk!

            1. Plus you have really bad munchies and only more brownies to eat.

    3. I’ve had bad experiences with edibles, too, but my first thought the next day was that I was a dumbass for listening to my stoner friend who told me it didn’t have much in it. Not that the government needs to save me from myself.

    4. . . . where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours.

      Well, first off dear, marijuana doesn’t do that. I don’t know what you *were* on, but it wasn’t MJ.

      1. Sorry, that was an acid lollipop. No problem, here’s a refund.

  4. Too bad Video Game Month is over.

    At least June isn’t some boring Bitcoin month.

  5. “I know it feels good. I know we’ve all read the ‘scientific’ studies that say it’s not addictive and that there are no side effects. But scientists don’t smoke pot. We do. And that’s the difference. Look, all I’m saying is if you still wanna smoke pot, then be prepared to spend a lot of time laughing with your friends. Think about it.”

  6. There has been a lot said about the aphrodisiac effect of weed. For some reason, scientists dislike to admit that there is such a thing as an aphrodisiac, so most pharmacologists say there is “no evidence to support the popular idea that weed possesses aphrodisiac properties.” I can say definitely that weed is an aphrodisiac and that sex is more enjoyable under the influence of weed than without it. Anyone who has used good weed will verify this statement.

    — Wm S. Burroughs

    (Sorry if I spoiled any surprises from this month’s issue)

    1. Weed isn’t an aphrodisiac. Weed, like alcohol, lowers inhibitions and anxieties, making social situations flow smoother. That means women are more likely to give it up when stoned and more adventurous while in that state.

      Aphrodisiacs *induce* sexual desire all by themselves.

      1. Nitpicking, it should be noted, is itself an effective anti-aphrodisiac

        =and while we’re at it:

        I’d dispute that ‘weed lowers inhibitions and anxieties’, necessarily. It certainly doesnt do it “like alcohol” even if you could claim results are similar.

        Regardless; i think there has been some scientific testing of a technically-accurate aphrodisiac effect of THC. with mice and shit. You know, “science”. Mice hardons.

        “The researchers measured levels of blood testosterone and luteinizing hormone, or LH, which stimulates testosterone production, within the first hour after feeding liquid THC to mice. They found that the testosterone level in all the mice jumped almost immediately to about six times its normal amount. Moreover, mice receiving low doses of the drug maintained the high testosterone levels for the entire hour; those receiving much higher doses showed drastic drops in testosterone after 20 minutes to levels considerably below those of mice in the control group.
        In person smoking marijuana, the THC enters the bloodstream very rapidly. The almost instant effect of the drug on the testes, as shown in this study, seemed to account for the dramatic reports of sexual arousal during and after smoking.”

  7. What a minute! Isn’t EVERY issue of Reason about “The long, hard road to safe, legal pot”?

    1. Nah. Some of them are about the long hard road to open borders.

    2. Remember, “Libertarians are Republicans who smoke dope”…

      Glad to see them celebrating the hard fought victories of libs and progressives. Nothing like letting us bust our asses for 40+ years and then saying “yeah, we thought do all along and this was our doing”…..

      1. Yet again your revisionist history leaves us to ponder whether you are crazy or merely incapable of anything resembling rational thought.

        Pray tell, how do you proclaim hard fought victories of libs and progressives when there are STILL libs and progressives that want nothing to do with marijuana reformation laws?

        By the way, what have you personally, the Masshole, done with regards to busting your ass for weed? Be specific.

        Not that reading comprehension is all that high up on your list of priorities but have you noticed how many here do not smoke dope? Doesn’t that kind of put a hole below the waterline of your silly cliche about libertarians being Republicans who smoke dope?

        1. Has nothing to do with who smokes dope or not.

          Simple math (statistics) tells the tale. It’s no accident that MA was one of the first states to decrim (thanks to Soros money!) and that CA. has the most extensive medial pot (wink wink) programs in the USA.

          At the same time, many “con” states (right wingers) are far behind.

          Sure, y’all are coming up to speed now. I won’t deny that. But you must give credit where it is due. Find most “freedom” topics, like freedom of your mind and freedom of family planning, and you will find liberals and progressives being the major forces in terms of making policies more “liberal” and “reasonable”.

          I voted for Decrim and support it. I also give business advice (free) to a CA. marker of safer tokers (vaporizers).

          If we break down the meaning of the cliche, it says “I care about subjects right in front of MY face, but less so as they move further away”.

          Take your friends the Kochs. A libertarian should be against allowing them to pollute more – for profit. Allowing hundreds of thousands to get sick is worth some excess profits.


          Show me how libertarians are helping less people suffer and die from air and other pollution. From what I see, progressives and liberals are leading that charge of personal freedoms also.

          1. So craiginmass. In your world it’s okay that Soros can use money to influence the political process, but not okay when the Koch brothers do it. I thought righteous defenders of the cause were against anyone using money to influence politics. It’s good to know that you stick to your principals, if you had principals.

          2. “From what I see, progressives and liberals are leading that charge of personal freedoms also.”

            What color is the sky in your world?

            Leftwing moonbats lead the charge on personal freedom except:
            -soda size
            -the kind of car you drive
            -what kind of toilet you have
            -what kind of light bulb you have
            -the way you raise your own children
            -the way you retire
            -the type of guns and ammunition you have
            and you know I could keep going and going.

            You’re not for personal freedoms. Not even a little bit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.