John Kasich

John Kasich Explains "The Problem with Marijuana"

Well, you see, it's just like alcohol, and so sends a confusing message about...whatevs.

|

"The problem with marijuana is this," Ohio Gov. John Kasich explained to Stephen Colbert on The Late Show the other night, "We don't want to tell our kids 'don't do drugs, but by the way, this one is OK."

To which Colbert responded quite plainly and convincingly, "Isn't that what alcohol is?"

Kasich, who opposed Issue 3, the failed constitutional amendment that would have legalized pot in the Buckeye State, literally waves off the statement and then launches into a story about a 21-year-old kid in Mississippi who killed himself over drug addiction.

If this is what passes as legitimate political discourse on marijuana, it's no wonder that the war on pot has at long last lost the hearts and minds of Americans. Recent polls show that 58 percent of Americans (and 58 percent of Ohioans as well) believe that marijuana should be legal and regulated similar to beer, wine, and alcohol. (Issue 3 failed due its crony-capitalist features, as Jacob Sullum details here.)

Politicians in both parties will be the last to endorse where the people have led. With the exception of Rand Paul, who tends to couch his support for marijuana legalization in terms of federalism, and Bernie Sanders, who has introduced legislation to end federal pot prohibition, none of the presidential candidates for the two major parties is much in favor of recreational pot (Hillary Clinton, who said flatly at the first Democratic debate that she's against legalization, has recently endorsed changing marijuana's federal scheduling level in a transparent bid to co-opt Sanders' position somewhat).

The idea that anyone can still support the war on pot is staggering. From a pragmatic perspective, marijuana prohibition has been a staggering and multi-variant disaster, the policy equivalent of the Hindenburg explosion played out every second of every day in every town, city, county, and state over and over again. From a moral perspective, the notion that adult Americans should not be free to choose the substances with which they chill out, intensify their lives, or literally and figuratively change their minds is a standing affront to all the paeans to freedom and choice that politicians spit out like phrases from a talking doll.

Watch Kasich and realize that he is not necessarily the worst, only the most recent example, of a politician who is completely out of touch with where America is headed on the pot issue. And that while a pot prohibitionist of one stripe or another will almost certainly be the next president of the United States, whoever that is will almost certainly be the last such president too.

NEXT: U. of M. President Quits, SeaWorld to Dump Killer Whale Shows, Russia Faces Massive Sports Doping Scandal: P.M. Links

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. Do you really want pot regulated like alcohol? I sure don’t want alcohol regulated like alcohol.

    1. People allowed to privately produce it and share it with their friends, age limits meant to preserve the right-to-use for adults while keeping minors away, bans on public consumption while allowing businesses to provide a place to enjoy it socially, laws on driving while under the influence…

      Yeah, I think I’d be okay with that.

      1. Drunk driving laws are bullshit, and fuck MADD. Banning of alcohol consumption in public is also bullshit, so fuck that too. So, no, I don’t want weed or alcohol regulated at all how alcohol is regulated now.

        1. Do any countries ban drinking in public outside of the US and Canada?

          1. Nowhere I’ve traveled in Western Europe comes to mind, unless it’s a policy of total non-enforcement. And Mexico certainly doesn’t give a shit.

          2. Legal in much of Asia, not legal in India.

          3. Saudi Arabia. Iran. UAE. Qatar. Bahrain. The Caliphate.

        2. how are drunk driving laws bullshit? Sorry, but your stupidity does not entitle to put other motorists at risk.

          1. Because the current legal limit of 0.08% is utter horseshit. Plenty of people can drive just fine after a number of drinks. No swerving, no weaving, nothing. If someone gets pulled over for swerving dangerously and is also blackout drunk, fine, punish him for reckless driving and tack on him being shitfaced as well. But if someone is pulled over, who has been driving just fine, for a broken tailight, smelling booze on their breath is not a reason to subject them to bullshit field sobriety tests and breathalyzers so that the state can cash in on the wildly high DUI fines. So yes, drunk driving laws are bullshit, and completely ignore how different people metabolize alcohol. Not to mention how, at least in CA, you get rammed with ridiculous fines and penalties before you even see a judge. That kind of guilty before proven innocent attitude is, once again, bullshit.

            1. that’s not what you complained about – you cast these laws as bullshit on their face and even a libertarian crowd would suggest that your choice to drink a lot does not carry a right to endanger others. Your target is the application of the laws along with the requisite cop/judge/court hate, and that’s fine. But tarring the idea of the laws themselves is nonsense.

              1. So you’re on board with the “idea” of the law because…why? Good intentions? What, I’m your opinion, would be the ideal application of these laws? If you posit that “drinking a lot” always leads to “endangering others,” then you need to define what “drinking a lot” means, and how you would apply that fairly. Otherwise, I think most here will agree that DUI laws are bullshit. You want to punish the reckless driving? Fine. Punish that. But declaring that anyone who has had an arbitrary amount of alcohol to drink is now endangering others is quite a stretch, and those laws were definitely emotionally shooed in by MADD on the backs of their dead kids. So yes, on their face, these laws are bullshit.

                1. I’m on board with the concept of the law because I don’t think your desire to get shit-faced gives you license to be a menace on the roadways. If it makes you happier calling it reckless driving, go ahead. But the cause of the recklessness remains alcohol and even in that application, someone is going to devise the standard at which a motorist becomes reckless. Or you can keep claiming I said shit that I didn’t say.

                  1. You asked “How are drunk driving laws bullshit?” and then I told you exactly why I think they’re bullshit. There is a huge difference between someone driving shitfaced and someone driving drunk. You know that, right? You just keep saying you’re on board with the “concept” or the “intent,” and that’s fine. But as they stand, current drunk driving laws are trash, and are clearly a cash cow for the state. The only thing you keep parroting is “your choice to drink a lot does not carry a right to endanger others,” which I never said, and “your desire to get shit-faced gives you license to be a menace on the roadways,” which I also never said. But yeah, let’s start accusing the other person of putting words in their mouths.

                    1. there is a difference between saying the application of laws is a problem and saying those laws should not exist at all. Calling the laws bullshit leans far more toward the latter than the former.

                    2. The presumptive limit as well as the field sobriety test are not scientifically valid. Do you still support the laws as written? Or are they maybe at least a little bullshit?

                    3. Uh, no. It has an impact at all levels.

                      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..103933.htm

                    4. So, they (and you) are basically saying that diabetics are never safe to drive? That eating some bread before driving imposes undue risks on others?

                    5. “A study led by David Phillips and published in the journal Addiction”

                      Nope. I’m going to stop you right there. NO.

                    6. They *are* bullshit laws, and *should not* exist at all. At all. Full Stop.

                      If a guy gets from Point A to Point B, without causing harm to anyone else. . . whatever he has smoked or drank or eaten is absolutely, completely, totally, 100% IRRELEVANT.

                      The only victim in a DUI is the poor fucker who was kidnapped, robbed, and caged for the heinous crime of CAUSING NO HARM TO ANYONE.

                      You brainfried statist fucking shills are a waste of air.
                      Stop breathing.

                    7. I have to side with Los Doyers on this issue. The arbitrary enforcement of drunk driving laws flies in the face of the libertarian idea of punishing those who have yet to actually cause harm to another person’s body or property. I really don’t give a shit how much alcohol an individual has consumed prior to driving.

                      If we as a people decide to strengthen the penalties imposed upon those have harmed others due to their decision to drive under the influence of any intoxicating substance, so be it. However, the act in and of itself shouldn’t be criminalized.

                      Is it a foolish thing to do? Most likely yes. Should people be arrested and put through the prolonged headache of dealing with and paying a penalty for committing an act that didn’t harm anyone prior to arrest? Absolutely not. The choice is yours.

                      And before anybody tries to play the personal anecdote game, let me be clear. I have had two family members killed by drunk driving. One was responsible for his own death and another was killed by a drunk driver who fell asleep at the wheel. It doesn’t sway my view in the slightest. It’s the actual harm to others that should be prosecuted, not the personal choices that led up to it.

                    8. Exactly!

                      Lacking a victim, no crime can possibly have been committed – the poor bastard getting pulled out of his car and arrested for the High Crime of having harmed no one is the only victim.

                      If someone goes out drunk and obliterates a bus full of nuns – by all means, throw the entire law library at them – call it premeditated if need be. . .

                2. i could agree that the enforcement can be a bit heavy handed, but the concept of drunk driving laws are not bad. you can disagree with the specific limit, or the specific penalties, but drunk driving is public endangerment. it does result is death and injury to others. it does not pass the muster of non-aggression, because it is not a self only danger being assumed.

            2. Most countries have a zero tolerance allowance for BAC and operating vehicles.

          2. I can’t speak for Los Doyers. but a lot of folks dislike the arbitrary nature of DUI laws, Reckless driving should be the charge, whether your BAC is .04 or .08 or 2.6 should not matter.

            1. guess I ougtha refresh more often.

            2. as I said to Los Doyers, the application of the law is a different animal than their mere presence. I don’t think you’ll find many, even here, advocating for the abolition of all drunk driving laws. If you want to quibble about the standards, that’s fair game. Same with checkpoints but seems to me the intent of the laws is pretty well-grounded.

              1. The problem for a lot of people, I think, is that it singles out drunk driving and ignores lots of things that are equally dangerous. No law against driving when you haven’t slept for 24 hours or having bratty kids distracting you in the back seat. But things like that can be just as dangerous as driving drunk.
                Yes, the guy who is falling down drunk and swerving all over the place should probably be punished and not allowed to drive on public roads. I’d say that the fact that you are guilty simply because of having a certain BAC is the major flaw.

                1. I think the BAC test is largely convenience. It is objective and clear cut and you know roughly what you have to be doing to drive legally. I prefer that over a system where you are thrown in jail based on officer friendly’s subjective judgement. You have a point that there are other dangerous things to do while driving but in the realm of unreasonable government behavior this doesn’t even register.

                2. The problem for a lot of people, I think, is that it singles out drunk driving and ignores lots of things that are equally dangerous.

                  But that’s not a problem with drunk driving laws. You’re suggesting a problem of a lack of other laws. And the other guys aren’t suggesting a problem with drunk driving laws, they’re suggesting a problem with .08 laws. A lot of very bad reasoning going on here.

          3. Reckless driving is already against the law, regardless of BAC. Moreover, if stupidity is what puts people in danger, then you ought to be administering IQ tests instead of breathalyzers.

            What makes the laws bullshit is that there is no connection to actual crime. You can knock back a few beers and drive home without harming anyone. This is reality, and most people know this. Moreover, just being behind the wheel of a car–even if stone-cold sober–puts other motorists at risk.

            In the best case, if everybody involved was of the purest intentions and noblest stock, we end up with rule by relative probability–aka technocracy. That’s not libertarianism.

            1. Having said all of that, if we’re entertaining non-libertarian ideas, I’d much rather see a BAC-based sentence enhancer for other crimes than have a certain BAC level be a crime unto itself.

      2. It’s certainly not ideal, but it’s the best we are likely to see. It’s pure political positioning. The pure liberty argument for drug legalization isn’t a winner with the general public, as much as I wish it was.

        1. Sad but true, the American public is not about to let a person decide what to do with their own body – not when they can morally posture about it!

          1. Unless its abortion which is somehow a special case.

            1. The other half of the American public would not let a person decide what to do with their own body in that case.

              1. True. I guess at least the other half of the population is consistent.

      3. People allowed to privately produce it and share it with their friends, age limits meant to preserve the right-to-use for adults while keeping minors away, bans on public consumption while allowing businesses to provide a place to enjoy it socially, laws on driving while under the influence…

        Huh, we’re not that free with alcohol or Marijuana here.

      4. It’s illegal to produce alcohol stronger than 15% at home.

        1. No, I can ferment to 18 with champagne yeast no problem. I cannot concentrate by distillation or fractional crystallization.

          1. *Legally, unless you agree to let the BATFEM to show up at any property you own or inhabit to search without a warrant, have a bided warehouse, and pay about $7500. However, Instapundit just linked to a 10 gallon copper pot still that is probably extremely functional with just a propane ring burner.

            1. Bonded warehouse. I’m turning my wife’s leftover wine from the weekend into piss and some of it is sticking to my brain.

              1. Wife’s leftover wine? Explain.

            2. Even though it’s the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, they still use the acronym ATF.

          2. Well, what I want to do is distill my home-brew.

      5. What about child epileptics? Why should it be illegal for children to use any drug? Don’t they have a human right to control their own bodies?

  2. If anyone wants an explanation about what’s wrong with John Kasich, I’m available for the job.

    1. I hear he cut taxes by $5 Billion, then raised them by a little more than $5 Billion, resulting in a $5 Billion tax cut, or something.

      1. I think that’s Jindal.

        1. Jindal raised “fees” on college students by $1600 then gave them a tax credit for $1600 then he claimed, and Club For Growth scored it as, a $1600 tax cut for every college student in Louisiana. Jindal and Kasich are operating out of the same GOP governor playbook of fake tax cuts and real increases in spending.

  3. Well, if some 21 year old kiss in Missssssssssssippi offed himself caus eof drugs, then NO WAI!

    1. *observes latest typing monstrosity – decides to not even bother anymore – moves along*

      1. No! that was fairly accurate vernacular. although i’d have spelled it, “21 yee-ol kiss”

        1. my spelling any more – specifically, my typing on a computer (my handwriting is unchanged) – appears to be revealing some kind of brain malfunction. I don’t want to know any more about it….

          1. My handwriting is totally illegible. Result of using a keyboard for several decades and never hand writing anything.

            1. in college i did everything in longhand and only typed things up for submission to professors.

              now, my handwriting looks like that of an epileptic drunk whose first written-language was hindi

  4. Alcohol is a beverage, and I’m thirsty.

    I don’t think I can handle another Golden Draak today. Maybe something light like Brown Shugga.

    1. I just can’t muster any desire for anything more exotic than any major-label Lager in a bottle. Tennents is best, but I drink Labatt on purpose, even MGD.

      Just never been into beer all that much. More of a gin or vodka guy since college….

      1. The Molson was pretty good on tap when I was in Ontario. It’s what I mostly drank.

        1. How many poor skunks had to die to provide that delicious Canadian Beer flavor?

          1. It’s not Skunky up there on tap. You’re thinking of the bottled.

          2. No, no – the skunk scent only goes into “Upper Canada” or….that other awful, local brand in Ontario. I’ll think of it again when my repressed memory of it passes a decade or so from now…..began with an S…

            SLEEMAN! Fucking. Horrible.

            But Labatt, Molson? They’re harmless. Better than fucking Buttweiser, for fuck’s sake.

            1. Moosehead is ok too. Oh yes, Molson is far superior to Bud.

              1. I bet y’all fuck skunks too, ya skunk-lovers!

                1. This skunk – is it sexy?

        2. 30 years with bagpipe bands in Ontario. I started w/Molson, moved to Labatt about 10 years in cause…I dunno, it sat in my gut better and I could drink more.

          Plus – Molson is drummer beer….

          1. You played bagpipes. There’s your problem.

            1. Still do. No problem 🙂

              1. Could be worse. Could be the accordion.

                1. There’s actually some pretty cool music with accordion in Brazil. I know that’s hard to believe and it’s totally weird, but it’s true.

                  1. I like accordion music just fine. Bagpipes too. Bagpipes are much worse to listen to when someone who can’t play very well is playing, though.

                  2. And Louisiana Cajun.

                    And polka. Don’t forget polka.

                2. Or the theramin.

            2. Apparently it kills skunk-sensitive taste buds

              1. What kind of beer makes people like granny panties?

                1. I am currently drinking a Guinness, so Guinness.

                  1. That fits in with my world view quite nicely.

  5. Jon Stewart took the same interview approach when he spoke to man who could sign a piece of paper and change how marijuana is scheduled, right?

    1. SIMPSON’S DID IT!

  6. I have a creeping feeling, I mean it’s one of those ideas that’s there, but it’s faint and just occasionally it comes up to the forefront for consideration. But it seems to be surfacing more as of late.

    What might be the end to the drug war may not have much to do with the legalization effort here in the USA, but might come from other countries gradually giving up on it. There’s already an effort underway in Brazil to decriminalize all drugs, and now both Mexico and Canada are talking about making cannabis fully legal. I’ve heard rumors of more such discussions going on in various other countries. When the USA is no longer capable of bullying other countries into waging this inhumane and downright evil battle on our behalf, it’s pretty much over.

    Of course the UN would hate this, but they have no power and no one even gives a shit about what they think except for the shithead bureaucrats who sit on their various bullshit panels.

    1. I think that’s true, but from a political standpoint and not so much a supply and demand one. Sure, the supply will go up for both weed and coke, but there’s never been a shortage of weed in the first place. And while coke has been harder to get at times it’s certainly never been truly scarce. And there’s of course still the problem with serious legal jeopardy for anyone attempting to smuggle into the US. So the war won’t end simply because we’re flooded with so much supply that it’s impossible for law enforcement to do anything about it.

      Rather, it will come about because the two main problems with prohibition – the violence and lack of quality control inherent to most black markets – will stick out like sore thumbs. There won’t be coke overdoses in MEX or CAN because you’ll know exactly what you’re getting. Cartel violence will largely disappear, the only remnants a result of competing for the US market. It won’t take long for a majority of Americans to finally put two and two together.

      1. The mainstream media of course will really go into a frenzy of scary stories about the horrors of what legal weed is doing to those poor countries. Of course, it won’t work. They tried the same thing with CO when they legalized weed and it had no effect at all on opinion, except for maybe the opposite of what they wanted.

      2. Prohibition is ending one funeral at a time.

  7. Watch Kasich and realize that he is not necessarily the worst, only the most recent example, of a politician who is completely out of touch with where America is headed on the pot issue

    Politicians are generally out of touch with what the people think because they don’t give a shit. They only say what they think will get them elected and then when they are elected they do whatever they want. The only thing that will make politicians actually be in favor of what people want is if they are certain that not doing it will mean they’ll never be elected again. Other than that, they don’t give it a 2nd thought.

    Sadly, people take a package deal when it comes to candidates. Got 2 issues right that I’m in favor of? Ok, gotta go with it, otherwise other team might win. It’s like, ‘ok this guy is good on the 2nd amendment and the economy, but he wants to crucify people for smoking weed’. Well, I don’t really think we should crucify people for smoking weed… I mean my mom does it, and my sister, but that’s 2 out of 3, I’ll take it! Sorry mom and sis!

    1. that’s just the people who try to think it all through. i know several people who, when you ask about their voting choices, only give one reason. (sadly, it usually is one of the obvious push button issues politicians don’t ever really do anything about)

  8. NICK HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE A REPUBLICAN WHAT ARE YOU SOME KIND OF COCKTAIL GUZZLING COSMOTRIAN

    1. Clearly Nick doesn’t think of the CHILDREN who will now become DOPE FIENDS

    2. WHYCOME NICK NOT LOVE TEH CHILDRUNZ??1 NOT CARE FOR! NICK NOT WANT MERICA GRAATE AGIN! NICK LOST BRAYN SELL FROM POT!!

    3. Oh, good, this again. It’s funniest when done preemptively.

      1. It’s funny because it’s true.

        1. The dislike for Kasich on these threads is nearly unanimous, which includes me, but this particular instance of the joke rings true somehow? I’m not seeing it.

          1. This wasn’t the best place for it, but it really does happen so reliably that it makes a good running gag.

            It’s OK. I’m often enough the one being a little humorless and calling people on their dumb, tired jokes.

            1. Hey, I even think it’s a good joke sometimes. In one thread, I donned the all-caps to suggest that Rand Paul could be doing better in the polls if he had an “Make America Great” hat.

          2. Who doesn’t hate Kasich?

            (among the commenters, Joihnny is an ex-“libertarian-leaner” Reason cover/ pin-up boy.)

            1. Reason cover/ pin-up boy

              Go on…

  9. I love how this asshole says how he got to smoke pot and never got caught but NOW THE DRUGZ R BAD MMKAY???

    They always say this without the slightest remorseful or guilty attitude about it. Instead it’s soo funny! HAHAHA NO ONE CAUGHT ME!!!

    1. He didn’t inhale!

    2. *Insert Penn’s Obama rant*

      1. That rant really should be shoved down every prohibitionist politician’s throat if they’ve admitted to doing any drug at any time. And not in an “Aha, gotcha!” kind of way but in a “you should die a particularly violent, horrible death” way.

      2. “Maybe a little blow”

        That was awesome.

    3. Several have suggested that our recent US presidents should report immediately to jail for their prior drug use. But that’s so silly – drug laws are for little people.

  10. “You know, Mr. Kasich, I’m going to need more than complete gibberish from you in order to understand why you support jailing Americans who smoke pot.”

  11. Watch two ideological zealots engaged in pandering to their own echo chambers? Think I’d rather get high.

    1. I think a lot better when I’m high. That’s when I make GOOD decisions….

      /Towelie

      1. When I smoked weed, many many moons ago, I would often come up with the greatest ideas ever thought of. Then I couldn’t remember them later. Then I vowed that I would write down my great ideas while high so that I could remember them later. Then I got high and forgot to write them down.

        This is one thing that is definitely true about weed.

        1. Hey, at least you remembered to write that down. I broke down and watched it, BTW, and Kasich is by far the bigger loser. “I don’t wanna throw addicts in Jail.” But I do want to have laws on the books that allows us to do just that. What an asshole.

        2. *smiles sheepishly*

          So true.

          I did come up with an idea for a MagLev train when I was smoking pot and I was about 13. Drew a picture and everything.

          AND NOW THEY ACTUALLY EXIST! Someone owes me royalties – I SCRIBBLED A DRAWING DOWN 40 YEARS AGO!!!

          1. Almanian C. Clarke launches a photon of memory into Geo synchronic orbit.

            1. *head assplodes*

          2. The other thing I remember fondly about weed is how amazingly damn funny it can make almost anything.

            Me and some of my friends were getting high one evening, one of the first times I ever smoked and we were watching an old black and white movie ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’. Remember that? Do you remember it being outrageously fucking funny? I mean we were all laughing so hard, I’m talking about ROFLMAO laughing, side hurting, tears running down face and all that shit.

            I watched it again later on while straight and could not for the life of me figure out why it was so funny.

            1. Filmed at Wakulla Springs, FL (also the film location of the original Tarzan movies, I believe). One of the prettiest places in America and relatively safe from gators.

        3. I don’t think weed has ever given me great ideas but it certainly makes experiences more enjoyable. Everything smells, tastes, sounds, and feels better while high…

        4. Me and my buddies kept a notebook and used it. Good times.

          1. How many of the entries in your notebook involved fried chicken wings?

      2. I am a much better driver when I’m drunk also.

  12. These politician fucks simply will not debate or acknowledge the facts about marijuana. This fuck goes off on a tangent about fetenol. Fuck you Kasich.

  13. If this is what passes as legitimate political discourse on marijuana, it’s no wonder that the war on pot has at long last lost the hearts and minds of Americans

    I’m not sure why you’re picking on marijuana’s political discourse.

    This is what passes for political discourse on everything, including but not limited to complex issues like economics.

  14. But, yeah, Cytofascist, we should all vote when the choice is something like….John Kasich v Sherrod Brown, for example. SO important! SUCH a difference!

    People of Ohio – viva la difference!

    1. I had the displeasure of meeting Sherrod Brown at my facility when I was working in Cleveland. He needed a photo ops for “bringing mfg jobs back to Ohio”. What a self-absorbed PRICK. I mean bigtime.

      “Uh, Mr. Brown, WE brought the fucking jobs back. You didn’t do anything but fly in and get your picture taken and take time out of our day.”

      I will say Kusinich also stopped by. Nicest politician I’ve ever met. Ever. Really, really nice man. Batshit cray – super nice and friendly. weird…

      1. I think to be a successful pol, you might need the “self-absorbed PRICK” personality.

      2. You know, if I lived in the Buckeye State, I might actually vote for a candidate who ran on “Bring motherfucking jobs back to Ohio”. Or did you mean manufacturing?

        1. No “pol ” brings jobs back. Companies do. Like mine.

    2. You’re still butthurt over getting called out as a pseudo-intellectual poseur?

      If your choices are both about equally terrible, then not voting is legitimate, but this is not usually the case. There usually is some difference.

  15. The idea that anyone can still support the war on pot is staggering. From a pragmatic perspective, marijuana prohibition has been a staggering and multi-variant disaster

    Filling prisons up with low-level pot offenders… filled up prisons. There’s a prison-guard union that’s been able to grow employement, no? The prison-industrial complex has grown in size and scope.

    From a pubsec perspective, these look like wins all around.

    1. Jobs created or saved FTW!

      1. Equality created. If all your applicants check the felon box, it’s harder to discriminate.

    2. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out The House I Live In.

    3. Yeah, what’s scary is what are they going to replace the war on pot with to keep that racket going?

      1. Felony jay walking.

        1. Good to know that program has already started.

          We have the death penalty for headlight flashing. Oh wait, he’s dead, that didn’t create any jobs for the prison system…

          1. We would need to incarcerate the felony for several decade prior to execution.

      2. They aren’t. The money isn’t there. That’s why states started letting prisoners out even before the Great Recession.

  16. I feel like someone should walk out in the middle of his talk-show interview and just hand him a note that says, “Please Stop – signed, America”

    1. John Goodman should walk in and say, “Shut the fuck up, Donny!” and walk off stage. That would be perfect.

    1. Dear spineless Republican cowards……

      You lost the cops, OK? Now I know you are the stupid party and are desperately trying to fuck up 2016. But I can’t hear you talk with your head so far up your ass.

      1. Don’t worry, I’ve been ensured that draconian views on MJ will not lose the GOP even one vote. They should go full on retard about war mongering foreign policy too. How about some good ol nuke Iran talk? I really miss that.

    2. Doesn’t stop them from tossing a few flashbangs into the windows of toddlers.

    3. From the same article:

      By contrast, nearly three-quarters of police departments named heroin and meth as their top drug threats this year. The perceived threat of heroin has more than quadrupled since 2007, according to the survey.

      Cops are shitting their pants about the newest “drug epidemic” at the expense of the old drug epidemic. Film at 11.

  17. I know all of you libertarian-minded people think marijuana is okay, but that is probably because you haven’t smoked today’s pot. You see, today’s drugs are so much stronger than they were back in our day. Back in our day it was week, and think about how it affected us! I think pot should still be illegal because people just aren’t ready for it.

    1. Is that you, Maureen?

    2. But can you smoke today’s weed off a perforated RC Cola can while listening to Upstairs at Eric’s? No. Gen X for the win.

      1. OMG I think I have actually done exactly that.

    3. I’m smoking today’s pot right now, as it happens. So far I haven’t devolved into psychosis.

      1. I had a weed cola in Seattle recently. It wasn’t that good but I quickly realized that a very small cup of it was more than enough. -_-

        It would be amazing to have consistent THC products like they have out there.

      2. . So far I haven’t devolved into psychosis.

        That’s a matter of opinion!

  18. http://www.theonion.com/americ…..:1:Default

    OT: Christians Complain about Starbucks Cups: “clearly intended to be the color of Christ’s blood”

    1. Monologue Reader and Balloon Inflater FTW!

    2. They should put a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus lying in bed together smoking a joint.

      1. “Let’s fuck, buddy!”

  19. Remember when Gen. Barry McCaffrey was the drug czar under Clinton and Bush II? He said the usual goofy scare-tactics with the legal pot arguments.

    Then, a few years after stepping down from the position, I heard an interview on public radio where he was asked why alcohol is legal but the obviously safer mj was not legal. He gave a (shockingly) honest answer that there was no reason why and that it probably is a cultural thing.

    1. I think I remember that.

      Then there’s always the argument that goes like “Alcohol is already legal and it causes enough problems. Do we relly need another legal drug?”

  20. God, I hate Kasich. Statist, self-righteous, pompous, asshole. I would rank him near the bottom off the Presidential shit pile.

    1. I wanted to like him after he said something shockingly true about entitlements, but the evidence is clear that he sucks.

  21. He has no clue what he is talking about.

  22. I’m still at a loss to describe what kind of Republican voter John Kaisch thinks he’s going to win over. Crotchety old people lucid and ambulant enough to still vote?

  23. The drug war is un Constitutional since it is not authorized in Article 1 Section 8

    Looking at his web site – he appears to be a conservative.

    https://johnkasich.com/resultsnow/

    and yet he does not follow the US Constitution.

    Sir, you have little principles and should be ashamed.

    1. It’s pathetic how few supposedly constitutionalist conservatives take a principled stand against the federal war on drugs.

      1. 1. Do I agree with this law?
        2a. If yes, stop. Ignore any critical analysis of the law.
        2b. If no, then entertain critical analysis of it in order to bolster the case against the law.

        This is the entirely backwards process most people seem to apply when evaluating the law.

      2. You gotta take the package deal, man. You want to be a conservative, you get to talk about freedom and liberty. You’re gonna get some good stuff, like lower taxes. But you gotta take some good ol god given drug war, foreign intervention, and cop worship along with it. Or else the hippies win! Do you want some smelly hippy commies to win? Commies and hippies are on the same team and hippies smoke drugs, drugs are bad Mmkay? You want to smoke some drugs, you’re a commie, vote Democrat!

  24. The idea that anyone can still support the war on pot is staggering.

    “Staggering”? You must be drinking pure grain alcohol, the way God intended.

    1. P.O.E.

  25. “Kasich, […] literally waves off the statement and then launches into a story about a 21-year-old kid in Mississippi who killed himself over drug addiction.”

    Ha! You expect an answer from a politico when he can give his stump speech?

    1. If I was the fucking interviewer I would never let them change the subject. They might get up and walk out on me, but I wouldn’t tolerate the waving it off bullshit.

    2. He forgot the story about some kid doing acid and going blind from staring at the sun. That’s my favorite one.

  26. Somebody’s got a Kasich of the shitmouth.

    1. When even Vermont concludes that it’s too expensive…

      1. Well, they don’t have that sweet weed tax income, so HA!

    2. Hopefully we get more of those totes hilar advertisements that are in tune to the hip-hoppin’ step of the millenials.

  27. In more serious news:

    Please someone help stop these out of control twerkers, for the children!

    Dangerous twerkers on the loose!

    1. I didn’t hear any audio so may I suggest Yakety Sax?

  28. Who Says There’s a Liberal-Media Conspiracy? Why, they bring us all the most important news sans any “Framing” or “Spin”…..

    Important things like….. = Bush says he’d kill ‘baby Hitler’ if he could travel in time

    1. More more to the family brand, would he have killed baby Saddam in the crib?

  29. “Obama points to blocking Keystone as top accomplishment”
    […]
    “He says going ahead with the pipeline would have harmed the United States’ leadership on curbing global warming.”
    http://www.kristv.com/story/30…..mplishment

    Yep, awarding Buffett the oil-transport-monopoly is gonna save the planet!

    1. Christ.

      I was mocking Josh Earnest’s “We’re not going to let politics affect our decision”-claim as early as last week

      then 2 days later… suddenly its like, “State dept review? Fuck that! Lets gain some publicity out of it while its News!”

      No one calls them on their blatant reversals & hypocrisy, naturally.

    2. His top accomplishment is something that will be undone by the next president?

      Hang on a minute… He’s actually right. This is the best he can do.

    1. The details make that story even more brutal.

    2. That’s truly horrible. And what’s just as horrible is that nothing else will happen.

      Does anyone really think that any of the cops who shot that 6 year old will be convicted? Hell no, the jury will be stacked with boot lickers and that will be the end of it.

      1. “”Law enforcement should be trained to de-escalate situations,” said Rowdy Paradis, a nephew of the Yantis’ who says he was a witness. “In this case, I stood 10 feet away and watched two deputies escalate the situation and needlessly kill a man.””

        They knew the rancher was coming… from the details, it sounds like the wife was already there with the rifle… the guy comes and takes the rifle, and for some unknown reason, the cops want to suddenly take it away from him (maybe since they’d already shot the cattle they thought “he shouldn’t”…:?)… which reminds me of the line from Spy Game =

        Nathan Muir: When I was a kid I used to spend summers on my uncle’s farm. And he had this plow horse he used to work with everyday. He really loved that plow horse. One summer she came up lame. It could barely stand. The vet offered to put her down. You know what my uncle said?
        Charles Harker: No, Muir, what did he say?
        Nathan Muir: He said, why would I ask somebody else to kill a horse that belonged to me?

        So the rancher probably ignores them and looks to make sure the already-shot cattle is dead, and they fucking shoot him for not respecting their Authoriteh

        I swear either news media is reporting these things a lot more than they used to, or it seems like there’s at least 2-3 of these senseless unjustified-cop-shooting-citizens each week

        1. It’s definitely increasing. Seems like they got bored of shooting puppies and decided to just bypass that boring old stuff for shooting humans.

          1. It’s not increasing/there’s no evidence of increase. It’s just easier to find out about it.

            1. “It’s not increasing/there’s no evidence of increase.”

              Those are two entirely different things.

              There’s no comprehensive and reliably updated source of national police shootings. Saying that there’s no data is just saying you don’t have any data to prove *anything*

              I dont doubt more-transparent reporting is the main source of the *impression* its left.

              However, additional to the impression is noting the frequency that these shootings are so incredibly egregious and uncalled for. in the 1980s and 90s, you’d hear of shootings all the time in the context of a crime (or suspected crime). Cops were paranoid about “drug dealers” being armed. Now its like joe blow gets pulled over for a broken tail-light and ends up dead. Every week.

        2. I’m afraid it’s feeding on itself, like a media-fueled fad. Cops read these stories too, deduce they can get away w anything, so they do.

      2. In Louisiana, they are on camera killing a child and shooting an unarmed man, and then they lied to everyone after. I think they are (hopefully) fucked.

        This one is in rural Idaho, a location in which I would think people have a developed enough of sense of Independence that they do not feel the need to hold a high opinion of the police that makes them above the law in other places.

  30. OT: Is anyone else here disurbed that Reason is not commenting further (i.e. via H&R, article versus “links”) on topics such as: Mizzou issue, NY investigation of Exxon, Alcoa closure of smelters, etc.?

    1. I think that on the campus loony toon stories, people can only take so much derptastic and then your willingness to comment further just sort of turns off as a sort of mental self defense. Myself, I can’t wait until those out of control infants in adult bodies just run every single sane person out of academia and start running the circus themselves. It will truly be entertainment on an epic scale.

    2. There were two Mizzou posts today. The other stuff, not so much. And I agree with some others that the silence on Europe is deafening.

    3. What about smelter closures? I’m curious.

    4. Students are destroying higher education. I’m all for it.

  31. The next big moral panic will be “ghost apps”.

    1. They’re scary, yo, look what they did to them damn fool Yalies.

  32. OT: Modern Educayshun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxdeonvVfbU

    Haha. Guy nailed it.

    1. Was that filmed live at Yale?

      Good grief that droning noise through the entire thing is nearly as unbearable as the retard students.

      1. The ambient noise was vital for atmosphere.

    2. +18 out of 10 points

    3. that was great.

      Sunshine’s overalls were a nice touch

    4. I was just listening to the Ex Machina soundtrack. Weird and creepy and so on point.

  33. Someone should create a web app like Facebook and call it ‘MySafeSpace’ where we can spoof the retards.

  34. Video: Professor at Missouri calls for ‘muscle’ to remove cameraman filming protesters

    A shocking video emerged Monday from the anti-free speech protests that took place at the University of Missouri following the resignation of school president Tim Wolfe.

    Video recorded by journalist Mark Shierbecker shows an assistant professor of mass media at the school named Melissa Click calling for “muscle” to help remove him as he was trying to film protests being held on campus.

    Students and faculty gathered in support of the activist group Concerned Student 1950 which had called for Wolfe’s resignation following a series of racially-tinged events that have occurred on campus in recent weeks. One graduate student had embarked on a hunger strike in protest. The Missouri football team had also threatened to boycott future games.

    In an inexplicable turn, protesters set up blockades to prevent reporters from covering the event.

    Schierbecker recorded the most intense exchange, which unfolded between a reporter named Tim Tai and protesters who opposed Wolfe. At one point during the confrontation, students are heard chanting “hey, hey, ho, ho, reporters have got to go.”

    Also, do yourself a favor and read Iowahawk’s Twitter feed.

    1. The link won’t work unless you take all of the extra stuff out of the URL string.

    2. I read the twitter feed, and now I am currently lusting for Melissa Click. She is almost everything I find attractive in woman.

      1. Which part do you find more attractive, the ugly or the crazy?

    3. There’s some pretty funny comments there. The one about concerned students 1934. And this one is great:

      If you hate seeing your kid grow up, for $50,000 a year we can transform your teenager back into a fucking baby. #college

      1. That’s trivializing the problem. Babies aren’t vicious like this.

    4. I just read the Chancellor resigned too. I never realized when people talk about “clown college” they were talking about Mizzou.

      1. Wow, they actually got 2 of the top people to resign from the university with this insanity. Can’t wait to see what they do now. And other students all over the country who dream of pulling this same shit are now going to go for it. This is going to get derpfuckingtastic.

        1. “d other students all over the country who dream of pulling this same shit are now going to go for it. “

          Oh, hell yeah.

          Its going to be a firestorm of Racist-hoax mongering and parades of outraged protestors for the next 15 months. Somewhere in there i bet the gun-control people will try to jump on board and attempt some Coup-d’etat and force some institution to engage in some symbolic act of #FeelsHealing

        2. Wow, they actually got 2 of the top people to resign from the university with this insanity.

          Or, those people took a moment to reflect upon the meaning of their jobs.

    5. Good old Michael Moynihan: If you hate seeing your kid grow up, for $50,000 a year we can transform your teenager back into a fucking baby. #college

      I’m watching that horrendous video, and the big question: What is “ConcernedStudents1950”? What it does refer to? Because it sure sounds like they’re saying they come out of the 1950s.

      1. There is a student on a six day hunger strike? That is so funny. He is the Ghandi of swastika dookie.

        1. From Moynihan’s twitter feed comes this tweet, which I share because of the photo, which includes a lovely sign.

          1. The self-importance of the #1950 protest is staggering.

            Thus ends my self-important self response.

            1. I’m still struggling to understand the “no media” thing. Is that from some page in the little red book or are they just winging it now?

              1. Self-importance pretense that they are free to dictate narratives but refuse anyone else ‘permission’ to speak of them, basically.

                “speech” is about telling people what to think, and refusing them any opportunity to create their own perspective.

              2. They want room to do and say things that are….. unpalatable to society at this juncture. NO MEDIA

      2. “: What is “ConcernedStudents1950″? What it does refer to?”

        U Missouri admitted its first black student in 1950

        Bustle broke the news on this important branding-news, but also give key credit to Teen Vogue. also, something culture and community and marginalized voices being invalidated.

        1. Key articulations of meaningfulness

          “The activist group was formed to fight back against the racial hostility that has been allowed to persist on the University of Missouri’s campus without any response or plan of action. Since Head posted on Facebook about his incident, protesters have organized “Racism Lives Here” rallies and peaceful demonstrations from Concerned Student 1950. During one of the latter, an organizer asked the crowd, “Do you know why we want to get Tim Wolfe out of here?” The response:

          Because marginalized students belong on this campus. Because marginalized students should not be marginalized.”

          Stuff was not acted upon in meaningful ways.

    6. He’s also quoting some of his historical “greatest hits”

      e.g.

      “David Burge
      ?@iowahawkblog

      If I understand college administrators correctly, colleges are hotbeds of racism and rape that everyone should be able to attend.”

    7. “David Burge ?@iowahawkblog Nov 7

      Maybe the reason people are always offending you and hurting your feelings is because you deserve it.”

      I would probably modify that to, “because you suck”, but its still pretty much a cold-water-bucket of truth.

    8. I will add this thought, which might have been mentioned in some of the previous threads about this today:

      The swastika painted in shit is an antisemitic attack. So why is that being co-opted by the black lives matter retards? Is there a Jewish student group protesting with them?

      1. It’s more of a leftist agitation than anything else. The original complaint shoehorned in stuff about sexism and homophobia that isn’t even part of the recent activity that we know of.

      2. No. Jewish students are too busy getting meaningful degrees. Mostly.

      3. “The swastika painted in shit is an antisemitic attack. So why is that being co-opted by the black lives matter retards? “

        The Missouri people have been very pointed about repeating the statement “Marginalized people”… which seems a a way to try and make it appear to be more than just a “black thing”.

        But you’re right that every source has included the claim of the poop-swastika as apparently something that’s still supposed to be very offensive to *black people in particular*…. sans any rational explanation as to why that’s supposed to be the case.

  35. Out of touch w where America is heading, but not out of touch w voters. As a straight-up ballot Q, pot wins, but as part of a candidate’s portfolio, it loses. Voters who are pro don’t make it a priority when evaluating candidates; far more voters who are anti do. It’s partly because of how they see the issue itself, but I think mostly because the antis see it as a proxy for judging candidates on other, unspoken matters. Simply put, legal pot = hippie, and hippie = bad on issues generally. Once pot’s been legal for a generation or less, voters won’t see it as a hippie thing any more.

  36. This is what the American Student is demanding from their College Presidents:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

    1. Southpark episodes?

      1. No silly, they want bully-proof windows and troll-safe doors.

  37. Everyone try to remain calm: Emily Yoffe is done with Dear Prudence, and she is going to be replaced by a former Gawker writer and uber-dorky-feminist type (although she is not not that bad).

    1. OMG I FEEL LIKE AN APPENDAGE HAS BEEN RIPPED OFF AND REPLACED WITH…

      …no, wait sorry, my leg just fell asleep. all is A-ok

      1. You lie. You were trying to pull off a “howdy stranger”.

        1. Is that when you sit on your hand and then jerk off while its numb?

          1. Yes. You already know that. Because that’s what you were just doing.

            1. I had to google it. The internet said it was “When a man you have never met randomly walks up to you and fondles your cock. “”

              I wasn’t doing that either. Seriously though i have carpal tunnel issues and i’d never sit on my hand that long.

  38. The American Justice System is a Slot Machine

    In this article, you’ll read how the US Supreme Court Ruled that it is A-OK for cops to shoot at a car fleeing at 85mph regardless of whether the cops know who’s inside.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11…..chase.html

    In the following article, you’ll read how two cops were arrested and held on $1mm bond for shooting at a fleeing car.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/…..index.html

    I wonder what was different in the two cases ? All in the same day, btw.

    1. They killed the suspect in one, but killed a 6 year old boy in the other?

      1. By luck. That 6 year old could had been in the other car as well.

        1. I know what you’re getting at. And I get it. But the “Guess what the difference is” thing isn’t the best way to get your point across in this case.

          1. It’s Alice; how old is your youngest?

            1. Young enough that I count in months.

              1. 156 months?

              2. Alice ain’t that smart.

  39. Another Trident II launch in CA tonight. They were smarter about it this time.

    1. Trident II 2: The Duecening.

      1. I wouldn’t want to be there for the splashdown.

  40. Kasich made the same exact logical leap from Marijuana legalization to overdose deaths. I’d really like someone to ask him to point to any deaths from overdosing on marijuana. Or counter that marijuana might help fight the Opiate scourge that is plaguing this country.

  41. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.com

  42. The problem with marijuana is prohibition. It doesn’t work. We need to quit pretending that it does. And while we’re at it, isn’t it time to decriminalize other street drugs and allow adults to purchase pharmaceuticals without a prescription? Do that and we can end the failed federal “War on Drugs” and save a fortune on policing, criminal prosecution and imprisonment. That would be asking a lot from the dolts in government, but that is precisely what is needed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.