Ronald Reagan

Nancy Reagan, First Lady from 1981 to 1989, Dies at 94

Mrs. Reagan was staunch advocate of War on Drugs, later bucked Republican party by pushing for stem cell research.


Former First Lady Nancy Reagan,

Nancy Reagan Just Say No

wife of 40th president of the United States Ronald Reagan, has died of congestive heart failure at the age of 94.

Mrs. Reagan was a politically influential figure both during an after her time in the White House. Her tenure as First Lady is perhaps best remembered for the "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign she launched in September 1986. In a televised address, the first lady pushed for a ramped-up War on Drugs and zero tolerance for drug abusers.

During her statement, Mrs. Reagan said to the nation:

There's no moral middle ground. Indifference is not an option. We want you to help us create an outspoken intolerance for drug use. For the sake of our children, I implore you to be unyielding and inflexible in your opposition to drugs.

As Ronald Reagan was dying of Alzheimer's disease, Mrs. Reagan notably took the Republican Party's staunchly pro-life policies to task when she challenged the George W. Bush administration's opposition to public funding of embryonic stem cell research.

As the BBC reported in 2004, Mrs. Reagan said:

"I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this… We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."

She said she believed stem cell research "may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp".

Mrs. Reagan will be buried beside her husband on the grounds of the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

NEXT: Is There a Good Outcome for the 2016 Election? Probably Not.

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. Thank god the Canklocracy has ended!

    What a nasty, vicious human being she was.

    Good riddance. May God have mercy on your wretched soul.

    1. Libertymike,

      The article was about Nancy Reagan, not Hillary Clinton.

      If you actually dislike Mrs. Reagan, this is for you.

      1. Either he doesn’t know who Nancy Reagan is, or he doesn’t know what cankles are.

        You decide.

        1. Are you unaware of the fact that she did have cankles? Just because you are otherwise tiny does not thereby mean that you can’t have cankles.

          Before he got sweet with her, ole Blue Eyes noted here cankloid condition.

          1. Just say “No Nancy”.

    2. By all accounts I have seen, she was a total bitch to her staff. I wonder how many harmless people her war on drugs put in jail.

      1. Or in the grave.

      2. Years ago I read Peter Lawford’s biography.

        In the book he makes the claim that when she a Reagan first started dating that the three of them would take trips to Vegas fairly regularly.

        He claims that Nancy would sit in the back and take turns giving them blowjobs on the drive over.

        1. In Kitty Kelly’s bios of both Frank Sinatra and Nancy, she quotes Frank’s unflattering assessment of Nancy’s cankles. None other than Jackie O remarked that Nancy had “ugly legs with serious cankles”.

          Perhaps I should read Lawford’s biography?

          1. Kitty Kelly is not exactly someone I would credit with a lot of accuracy, or integrity.

        2. Not that I had any particularly good feelings for either of the Reagans, but considering Lawford’s years of wild living and lifelong substance abuse leading to death from liver and kidney damage (which often causes mental deterioration,) I think I’d be inclined to treat that account with some skepticism. He might just as well have been confusing them with Marilyn Monroe and Frank Sinatra or the Kennedys.

  2. The writeup almost makes her sound principled. What a disgusting revisionist history that is!

    Besides which, who cares?

  3. Mrs Reagan, I am smoking some reefer in honor of you.

    Thank the Lord you will not have to face the possibility that Bill Clinton may be the first lady.

  4. My Mom is 96 and has come around on pot (about 10 years ago). Nancy never did.

    And ya know what? Pot slows or stops (I was going to say arrests) alzheimers.

    May she rot in HELL.

    1. Jews have defected to hell now????

      Geez, I really need to stay more current.

      1. Maybe you need to recognize that Nancy had cankles.

      2. All non-Mormons go to hell. Common knowledge.

  5. Nance, you weren’t as hot as Babs, but you were a damn site better than Michelle.


  6. Just say dead.

  7. Prohibitionist, propagandist, astrologer and creator of “color-coded days,” meddler in foreign affairs, vindictive, micro-managing pussy-whipping, mass-incarcerating slaver, what else…

    Oh and her husband was President of the Screen Actors Guild for Christ’s sake!

    Just Say No to any sympathy for this wretched human scum.

    1. In her defense, she was completely brainwashed by Mel Sembler’s “Straight, Inc” drug treatment propaganda and hysteria. Everyone was, to some extent. Well, except of course for you, who saw right through it.

      1. So if you were brainwashed by him, much in the same way she was, why should I give any weight to your defense? Wouldn’t it be just as untrustworthy as her original set of assertions?

    2. You must feel big, to piss on someone’s grave for no apparent reason.

      There are dangerous drugs. Teaching 10 year olds to say no to cocaine isn’t the equivalent of Hitler pushing Jews onto the oven.

      1. There are dangerous drugs, but none more dangerous than the opiate called the Drug War and its proponents. Nancy did assist in pushing millions into cages.

        1. And some to their deaths.

          We still aren’t researching cannabis for human cancer. If it works as I expect that is 100,000 deaths a year.

          At 35 years and counting that is 3.5 million deaths. That is getting up there. From just one disease.

        2. The first indication that cannabis could help with cancer was a mouse study published in 1974.

          Nancy, her husband, and Nixon saw to it that further research was not even done on mice for several decades.

          1. Exactly. Google this fellow named Gabriel Nahas, if you want to get a belly full of opportunistic drug war propaganda.

            It’s crooks and slavers all the way down.

            1. He was an anaesthesiologist who suffocated monkeys and claimed that the brain damage was from pot. You know, an expert.

      2. Hitler pushing Jews onto the oven.

        Nice Godwin!

        But seriously, I thought all the Hitler references were already used up for this week due to the prevalence of Trump articles.

        You must feel big,

        I assure you there’s no problem.

        Teaching 10 year olds to say no to cocaine

        And pussy-whipping Ronnie into creating the first set of federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses that sent countless thousands of people into cages for decades.

        But that’s just me trying to feel big.

        1. Pot cures some cancers. Likely all of them.

          That is 100,000 deaths a year. 3.5 million so far since Nancy was first lady.

          Is that Hitler enough for you?

          And cocaine was over the counter for decades before it was outlawed. We handled it fine. Until we got “pushers” from the black market.

          1. You are spot on. If you start accounting for the full collateral damage in this execrable war, you get to genocide proportions, literally millions of folks who either could have been helped medically by pot, and millions of others who were caged, killed, financially ruined, driven to suicide, families ruined.

            It’s incalculable what this drug war has wrought.

            1. Yet, you seem curiously uninterested in the mechanisms that got it started in the first place. Other than “Blame it all on Ron & Nancy”.

              1. I’m well familiar with the history of the drug war, from Anslinger and the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, forward.

                But just because someone was part of a larger historical evil, does not absolve them from individual responsibility. She has to bear her share, and she was one of the principal propagandistic forces during her time in the spotlight.

              2. Reagan’s started to distract reporters from Iran-Contra before the midterm elections. Do you really think that Nancy cared about some black basketball player named Len Bias?

          2. “Pot cures some cancers. Likely all of them.”

            No, it fucking doesn’t.

            1. So says the person who refuses to recognize that Nancy had cankles.

              1. Oooh, that was quite a retort. You got any other gems like that? Maybe a “nuh-uh”, or a “no, you!”.

          3. Pot cures some cancers. Likely all of them.

            [citation required]
            (a real citation)
            {not from High Times}

            I’m 100% behind legal pot, but you are talking out your ass.

            1. ProCon went and did just that. And not just for cancer, but for all of the conditions cannabis is reputed to cure or ameliorate. What they found seems to bolster the case. For some conditions, such as psychosis and Chrohn’s/IBD, the results were mixed, but for cancer, at least in the relatively small number of studies they were able to find (6), the consensus is that there is great hope in the cannabis-based treatments:

              All conditions:




              1. It is amazing the number of people around here who haven’t studied the issue.

                Even more amazing is that despite their lack of study they are sure that the claims for pot are exaggerated at best and lies at worst.

                A study of the endocannabinoid system is in order.

                1. “No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.”

                  Cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in clinical trials for ways to manage side effects of cancer and cancer therapies

                  I know I shouldn’t have to put the != here.

                  1. Simply not true. Again, from procon: http://medicalmarijuana.procon…..84#cancer:

                    1. Cannabidiol inhibits proliferation of breast cancer cells PRO
                    Sean D. McAllister, PhD, Scientist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, et al., stated the following in their Aug. 2011 study titled “Pathways Mediating the Effects of Cannabidiol on the Reduction of Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation, Invasion, and Metastasis,” published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment journal:

                    “There is a general consensus in the field of cancer research that targeting multiple pathways that control tumor progression is the best strategy for the eradication of aggressive cancers. Since CBD has a low toxicity, it would be an ideal candidate for use in combination treatments with additional drugs already used in the clinic. Importantly, CBD appears to be interacting through a cellular system that regulates the expression of key transcriptional factors (e.g., Id-1) that control breast cancer cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. The experiments described in this manuscript not only define the pathways that CBD is working through to control breast cancer cell aggressiveness, but also demonstrate the efficacy of CBD in pre-clinical models. A greater understanding of this system may lead to future therapies for breast cancer patients, including the additional refinement of CBD analog synthesis.”
                    Aug. 2011 – Sean D. McAllister, PhD

              2. Cannabis is a proven antiemetic. PROVEN. It also has well know psychological effects that are beneficial, why is why people have chosen to smoke it for thousands of years.

                But the in vitro cancer research is complete bullshit. Rubbing alcohol kills cancer cells. Bleach kills cancer cells. My blowtorch kills cancer cells. That doesn’t mean it cures the disease in human beings. In fact, the chances of that being true are a fraction of a percent. Research it further? Sure! Great! Follow the science.

                In the meantime, making these claims is highly counterproductive. It makes people sound like kooks and idiots. Fuck medical marijuana; it still means asking permission. Legalize it. Period. Freedom is the ONLY argument.

              3. Again…

                There is a Yuuuuge difference between:

                CBD appears to be interacting through a cellular system that regulates the expression of key transcriptional factors (e.g., Id-1) that control breast cancer cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. The experiments described in this manuscript not only define the pathways that CBD is working through to control breast cancer cell aggressiveness, but also demonstrate the efficacy of CBD in pre-clinical models. A greater understanding of this system may lead to future therapies for breast cancer patients, including the additional refinement of CBD analog synthesis.”


                Pot cures some cancers. Likely all of them.

                It’s hard enough to convince folk that people have the absolute right to put anything into their bodies they choose.

                Claiming speculation as scientific fact hurts our cause. (And puts you on par with the global warmers)

                For a commentariat in a magazine called Reason…

                1. Drink!

                  Thank you! I was fumbling around for a reason to grab a KC Pils.

                  But back to the issue, the study you quoted from is pretty promising, given that the current consensus is that shutting down these transcriptional factors is the best way to mitigate metastasis and stop the disease in its tracks. As far as I know, it’s the first agent to have been demonstrated to achieve that result.

                  Still I think it’s enough to say at this point that there is great promise, and that much research needs to be done.

                  Reason enough to legalize the shit I say!

                  Drink again!

                  1. Still I think it’s enough to say at this point that there is great promise, and that much research needs to be done.

                    Completely agree.

                2. Speculation? See what Raphael Mechoulam has to say on the matter of cannabis and cancer. He calls it very promising.

                  And the anecdotes are proliferating. I know of at least two people who are using cannabis as part of their anti-cancer regime.

                  Or look up a video “Dr. Maria Sanchez cancer”

                  Or look up Biochemist Dennis Hill who explains how it works. Here:

                  The Human Endocannabinoid System Meets the Inflammatory Cytokine Cascade

                  Lots of ads here. But the text is good. As are the videos.

                  Dennis Hill’s Story: Beating Prostate Cancer With Cannabis Oil

                  1. I know of at least two people who are using cannabis as part of their anti-cancer regime.

                    Why? If you’re right, they should be cured.

                3. OK. How about — it is well studied and incontrovertible that cannabis cures a lot of cancers in mice.

                  Human studies are either very difficult or not allowed in the US.

                  Now why wold our government be against studying the matter in humans? If it turns out true that would make drug warriors mass murderers.

                  1. Now why wold our government be against studying the matter in humans?

                    Because politics trumps (no pun intended) science.

                    Just sayin, showing you are skeptical (on both sides) lends credibility.

                    1. showing you are skeptical (on both sides) lends credibility.

                      If I am convinced by the evidence – it is voluminous – why should I be sceptical?

                      We are not talking deep dish pizza here. There is good evidence. And I am not alone in my conviction.

                  2. what amount of murders qualifies as a mass? cuz the drug war has already killed a whole bunch of people…

                4. Franc, I’m sure you’re a great guy. A real champ. But what they’re saying here is some really great stuff. Just the best. Pot is gonna knock all those illnesses Outta the park….I’m telling you it’s gonna be fantastic.

              4. OK. Let me ask a question. If cannabis is likely to have few medical uses why does the pharma industry put so much $$ into “Drug Free America” and the like. Do you think the indications from research done so far and indications from anecdotes are giving their accountants heart burn?

                1. You know why. Patents.

                  Just legalize it. No problems. Free “treatment”

                  If cannaboids get put through clinical trials and approved, it’s going to be backed by a patent and it’s going to be fucking expensive.

                  1. If cannaboids get put through clinical trials and approved, it’s going to be backed by a patent and it’s going to be fucking expensive.

                    Or you can just grow your own. That is the BIG problem for the pharma companies. Who is going to buy their $$$ medicine if growing your own is an option.

                    It may be one of the reasons that the grow your own options are limited or non-existent in legalized States.

                    There is quite a medical cannabis underground in the US.

                    1. Yes, I’m sure the end medicine that MAY be derived from marijuana plants will easily be extracted from every person with a home grow operation in their basement. Just like it’s so easy to get penicillin from household molds.

                2. If cannabis is likely to have few medical uses…

                  Didn’t say it did. I think Cannabis is very promising.


                  You are being called out for making wild claims based upon very preliminary data. You may, or may not, be making said claims because you’re a doper with an agenda of legalizing MJ, facts be damned. Even if you aren’t, that’s how you’ll be perceived by your opponents and that doesn’t help the cause.

                  Stick to the facts and no one can call you out. Don’t misrepresent the facts to further an agenda. If you are speculating, say you’re speculating.

                  1. Well what facts do I have to stick to? Only peer reviewed studies? Or can I add in the increasing number of anecdotes? There is a point where anecdotes become evidence. It is my estimation that we are well past that point.

                    1. Oh well, if it’s in YOUR estimation, then it might as well be accepted as fact,

                  2. You’re arguing with the same kind of emotionally based thinking here as it is with the Reasonoids who bleat “open borders at any cost…….just because”. Like progressives, a lot of it is feelz and intentionz. Rather than a logical analysis of the available information. Which just produces a lot of maybes at this point.

                    1. But the evidence is pretty strong. Have you examined it?

                      Start with the links I left here. I can find you more. Or you can look on your own.

                    2. Strong enough to justify further research, yes. Not to make sweeping claims that it’s some kind of panacea.


                  1. There’s no allopathic cure for cankles.

                    1. You get a ginormous gold star for that one! In fact, it gave me the biggest chuckle of the day.

                  2. Warty, would you have commented thusly if you had not observed that I had posted on this here thread (although my posts have centered around nancy’s cankles)?

                    1. Probably, LM. I think.

                    2. There’s a link, down-thread, to a pic that shows that Nancy had cankles.

                      Sure, one would be foolish to blame allopathy for cankles.

          4. So no one who has regularly smoked pot ever died of cancer? I know of several cases of that not being true.

            1. So do I, but I wasn’t ready to sink to that level. Yet.

            2. I would think that smoking pot or any other kind of plant regularly does just about as much damage to your body as smoking tobacco. Smoke is a carcinogen as well as being full of carbon monoxide; neither is good for you.

              1. Inhaling smoke of any kind is generally unhealthy.

            3. So no one who has regularly smoked pot ever died of cancer? I know of several cases of that not being true.

              The anti-cancer properties are dose related.

              But here. Look up “Donald Tashkin cannabis lung cancer” – People who smoked cannabis only, got a mild prophylactic effect re: lung cancer. Better than non-smokers. His results were to a 90% confidence level. A larger study would be required to get a higher confidence level. It has been 10 years. No such follow up study has been done. I can’t imagine why.

              Imagine the headlines:

              Smoking Pot Is Good For You
              Smoking Pot Reduces Lung Cancer Risk

              Very bad for the Drug Warriors.

              1. Conditions for which pot has shown promise in animal studies at least.

                Some text from the link:

                Acetaminophen, on the other hand, is transformed by your body into a compound called AM-404, which blocks the break-down of anandamide, your body’s own version of THC. Just
                like THC, anandamide makes you “feel good” and decreases pain. Blocking the break-down of the fragile anandamide by AM-404 results in more anandamide being in your body, relieving your pain. The acetaminophen, itself, does nothing to relieve your pain!

                1. Auto play site:

                  Cannabis For Infant’s Brain Tumor, Doctor Calls Child “A Miracle Baby”

                  Some text (from 2012):

                  Medical marijuana is gaining acceptance, but could it even help kids? Dr. William Courtney has seen it happen, and on Friday, told HuffPost Live host Alyona Minkovski about it. Saying he was “quite a skeptic 5 or 6 years ago”, Dr. Courtney continued that “my youngest patient is 8 months old, and had a very massive centrally located inoperable brain tumor.” The child’s father pushed for non-traditional treatment utilizing cannabis.

                  “They were putting cannabinoid oil on the baby’s pacifier twice a day, increasing the dose… And within two months there was a dramatic reduction, enough that the pediatric oncologist allowed them to go ahead with not pursuing traditional therapy.”

                  1. Donald I. Abrams, MD

                    Some text:

                    He co-authored the chapter on “Cannabinoids and Cancer” in the Oxford University Press Integrative Oncology text that he co-edited with Andrew Weil.

                    Look him up on YouTube and all over the ‘net.


                    Indian Oncologists Want Cannabis Legalized To Fight Cancer

                    some text:

                    Other oncologists also pointed out that cannabis prevents blood supply to a cancer tumor and India is lagging behind other countries in cannabis research, said the report.

                    Apart from cannabis’ ability to fight cancer, it can greatly reduce the pain felt by patients, said a study. Researchers from the University of Oxford found that the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis doesn’t reduce the intensity of pain but makes it more bearable.

                    Scientists have also found that People who smoke marijuana may have lower levels of inflammation which is linked with the risk of heart disease.

                    1. Government-Run Cancer Institute Quietly Acknowledges That Cannabis Kills Cancer Cells

                      There is a link to an NCI paper at the above link.

                      Does The U.S. Government Own A Patent On Marijuana? – Yes.

                      Patent No. 6630507, held by the United States Department of Health and Human Services

              2. “Smoking” pot is actually very BAD for you. Far better off using a vaporizer, or ingesting it through the digestive tract. Inhaling smoke of any kind is universally bad for people.

              3. Smoking it is the LEAST healthy way to ingest it. You could disarm some anti-pot arguments if you specifically advocated using a vaporizer as an alternative method of inhalation.

          5. Pot cures some cancers. Likely all of them.

            As much as I’d like to believe it, this requires some serious citations.

            It it’s true, I’ll die of a heart attack or something.

            1. There’s enough promising results out there that it’s absolutely criminal that it isn’t being studied more because of federal restrictions. I think that’s safe to say.

        2. And pussy-whipping Ronnie into creating the first set of federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses that sent countless thousands of people into cages for decades.

          What makes you think it wasn’t as much his idea in the first place? Don’t ever mistake big shot, establishment Republicans for libertarians – they aren’t. Which is why I never voted for Republicans regardless of all their happy-ass bullshit about how much they love this country for its freedom and liberty.

          1. Point taken.

      3. You must feel big, to piss on someone’s grave for no apparent reason.

        He did give a few reasons.

  8. Sadly, the government is still pushing Drug War propaganda. Though now it’s through NIDA/NIH to give it a more scientific sheen. For example they are teaching kids: “Drugs change your brain to make you commit crimes. You don’t want to commit crimes now, do you? Don’t take the chance. Don’t do drugs.”

    1. The one I’m hearing a lot lately is “just one hit can KILL YOU.”

      1. It didn’t kill me, but it certainly put me on the couch for 4 hours…

    2. While all that is bullshit propaganda, marijuana does appear to have risks to neurological development in young people. Though far less so in adults. With the exception of people who have an unusually high risk of developing schizophrenia, or who already are schizophrenic. For most adults it’s mostly harmless.

  9. for a second, I thought this was one of the lefty sites where vitriol for dead ideological opponents is typical.

    1. Yeah, it’s unseemly.

      1. She deserves it. Every bit of it. As does Hitler.

    2. Nope. You’re home.

      1. You must have been touched by Nancy and FS’s duet, “To Love a Child”.

        1. I’ll be touched if the Isles beat the Rags tonight.

          1. Even if they have to skate to the right, more than to the left, in order to prevail?

            1. Unlike me, they don’t only have moves to the left.
              Kind of fitting though, eh?

              1. Well, it is fitting if they want to maximize their chances of putting the puck in the net.

                Oh god, don’t use that quote against me or any other anarcho-free enterprise-freak in the future!

  10. She said she believed stem cell research “may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp”.

    Having a purely emotional reaction to complex issue that had more to do with progressive insistence that the government must treat human embryos as morally null objects rather than supporting good science. One of the first indications that at Reason social liberalism trumped fiscal conservatism.

    1. You know who else wastes embryos?

      1. The Embryo Hunter?

        1. Think miscarriages.

          1. Chelsea Handler?

  11. Rot in hell, bitch.

  12. In another thread this morning, in response to a note that Nancy Reagan judt died:

    Pl?ya Manhattan.|3.6.16 @ 11:49AM|#

    We need at least a couple bets going over this.

    1. Which lefty media outlet will shit on her first

    2. Will this increase or decrease the Reagan comparisons

    The non-lefty Reason took a very quick swat at her and the commentariat here did a lot of shitting on the woman’s casket.

    1. I don’t expect any lefty media to shit on her, honestly. Nothing mainstream, anyway.

      I did sort of expect some of it here. Which is OK, but I’m not going to badmouth her just now.

  13. I was disgusted by the nastiness of the left when Margaret Thatcher died. I’m feeling something similar right now.

    1. Why? Nancy Reagan assisted in the caging of millions of people. Were you disgusted by that?

      1. She helped “win” a debate 30 years ago. You are trying to win the same debate today. It doesn’t help your cause if you’re kicking the corpse of a frail 94 year old woman up and down the internet. It makes you look like an asshole.

        1. Hey. I hated her when she was in her 40s. Is it OK for me to continue? Or do I have to respect her now that she is dead?

          1. Do whatever the fuck you want. But, optics, man.

            1. So now that Hitler is dead I should say nice things about him?

              Or should I have been respectful in 1945 when he died (I was 9 months old) and save the vituperation for later?

              1. There millions of people, perhaps, possibly sympathetic to your cause, and willing to listen to your arguments. And then you turn around and compare Nancy Reagan to Hitler. Smooth move, Ex-Lax.

                1. There are

              2. That’s some nice relativism you have there.

              3. Yeah, that’s the same.

          2. What did she do to piss you off in the 1960’s?

      2. And if the cancer stuff pans out she was complicit in the deaths of at least 3.5 million people.

        The evil that men do lives after them.

        1. So she was aware and convinced of your “weed cures cancer” bullshit when she was First Lady and used her awesome First Lady powers to suppress the information just to keep the teens from getting the deeper meaning of Pink Floyd albums?

          She’s a semi-Hitler alright!

          1. She was part of the cabal that prevented research. And both Nixon and Bush (VP before he became Pres) put out executive orders preventing research on cannabis and cancer.

            So odds are she had heard of it and never changed her tune.

            Marijuana cures cancer ? US government has known since 1974

            Some text:

            In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out ? unsuccessfully ? to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”


            Cannabis: The Forbidden Medicine


            in 1983, the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all of the studies from the Medical College of Virginia (with some success according to Jack Herer). Guzman’s studies in Madrid were the first time THC has been used to treat living animals with tumors since the 1974 Virginia study.

            1. Sure, why not?

            2. So she was specifically involved in all of that…… first lady. I think maybe you’re reaching.

      3. The people caged pretty much volunteered for their caging, just like the idiots trampled when running the bulls in Pamplona volunteered for their injuries.

        The only thing stupider than the drug laws are the dumb fucks who knowingly run afoul of them.

        It’s not Nancy Reagan’s fault that idiots can’t find something better to do with their time than dick around with stuff that sends them to jail if they get caught with it.

        By all means, fight and agitate against the drug laws because they are idiotic and anti-freedom, but you’re on your own if you get caught before they’re repealed.

        1. So the people locked up and killed by alcohol prohibition deserved it?

          All you have to do to avoid the gulag comrade is keep silent, do as you are told, and do your job. Otherwise it is a vacation in Siberia. Or worse.

          1. The smart people worked to successfully to get Prohibition repealed; the dumb ones got killed or jailed on account of it.

            Do what you want, but don’t whine about the consequences.

            1. Ah. But whining about consequences is part of the repeal effort.

              My brother was killed in ’74 by a Drug Gang. I will keep on whining until Prohibition is repealed.

            2. Dumb: exercising your freedoms without the permission of the government.

              1. Unfortunately we still live in Realityville, not Libertopia. Fooling with illegal substances puts you in risk of the slammer in Realityville. There are many things in Realityville I dislike intensely and government intrusions like the war on drugs are at the very top of my list.

                I’d like to change things, but they are what they are right now.

            3. Bullshit. Most of the smart people kept on drinking if that was their thing. Just like most drug users do now.

              1. Then only the dumb ones get thrown in jail, but I’ll bet many of those in the cage thought they were smart.

                Until we get saner laws, I don’t think its wise to monkey voluntarily with stuff the gun-bearing authorities are so implacably against.

                1. Yeah, but fuck those people. Mind altering substances are just something people are drawn to and a big part of pretty much all human culture. It’s a powerful enough thing that even putting aside the junkies and losers there are tons of smart, successful people who judge the risk worth it and take drugs.

                  It’s just plain tyranny and people should not give into it.

                  1. Well fine, but there is the risk of government retaliation and punishment as long as the drug laws are enforced. It’s not nice, but that’s how it is in Realityville. I wish the drug laws were gone, and I’m happy live in a state where recreational pot is legal but we aren’t in Libertopia yet.

                    If “not giving into it” means “putting yourself at risk of the rape cage” I recommend caution about not giving in.

        2. Let me add that there would be no agitation for repeal without all the people caught up in this monstrosity.

          1. That’s a piss poor reason for an individual to get voluntarily caught up in it.

            1. Nobody I know volunteers for the gulag.

              And what easier targets than the youth who may not be so wise in the ways of the world.

              1. We should be wising up the youth about the ways of the world rather than bitching about Nancy Reagan.

                1. You are one fantastic statist cunt, aren’t you, Homple.

                  1. Not a statist but, given present circumstances, I just like to advise people, especially young ones, on ways to stay outside of the rape cage.

        3. but you’re on your own if you get caught before they’re repealed.

          What the hell does that even mean? That no one is going to come change the law so you don’t get punished? Obviously that’s so. But if you mean that you have no sympathy or concern for people being punished and killed over drug prohibition, then you are kind of a dick. People are being punished and even killed for doing nothing at all to harm any other person or property. That is utterly and completely wrong no matter what.

          1. All the sympathy and compassion won’t do much good for the people in the slammer. Your feelz mean diddly squat to them.

            My advice is: leave that shit alone.

            1. And that’s fine advice to give. But to disregard the terrible injustice done to people who decide to use drugs anyway is callous and cruel. There is nothing wrong per se with using drugs.

              1. There is nothing wrong per se about using drugs. What’s dumb is going to jail for doing so. And unfortunately, that’s how things are set up right now.

  14. Nancy Reagan was solely responsible for the drug war, and cannabis cures cancer?

    Is the the Democratic Underground? Where my hit-n-run-publicans gone?

    1. If you were alive at the time she was a VERY influential propagandist for Prohibition. Pot at that time was a lefty thing. She was totally a culture warrior and did quite a lot for that war too.

      Her husband did some good things – like further demoralize the Soviets. Her? Other than being his wife I can’t think of anything redeeming about her.

      1. Well, we can’t forget about Hellcats in the Navy, can we?

        1. Well I can one up them. I was a Naval Nuke.

          1. Okay, but given how god awful that movie was……

      2. She even got Gary Coleman involved!

    2. What we forget today – so far removed from the events – was that pot prohibition was aimed at the left. It was a way to go after leftists without seeming to. Hippies and Democrats (often the same thing) were targeted. It may have neen convenient. It was wrong.

      “Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.

      “[Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks” Haldeman, his Chief of Staff wrote, “The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”

      1. And guess what? Prohibition still targets Blacks over other races. And they get more severe sentences for the same offense.

        1. All the more reason for Blacks to leave that shit alone, then.

          1. All the more reason for government to get out of the covert racism business.

            1. I’d tell anyone of whatever skin color to leave that shit alone until the government gets out of the covert racism business.

              1. I think you wandered over from, Homple.

                1. I have good advice to people about staying out of jail. I’m not sure that makes me a slaver.

    3. don’t forget about her cankles

  15. This thread is…something…

  16. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..


    1. The Saab 99 has not been manufactured since 1984. And Saab as a company folded years ago. You faggot cookies can’t even keep your fucking spam accurate.

      1. “Work-at-home-bot” used to always feature old obscure desirable cars. It was it’s only charm.

      2. Well, it’s a thread about Nancy Reagan?

    2. “there neighbour had bean”

      So racist.

  17. R.I.P. Nancy, because of you, I said no to drugs several times.

    1. Good link – now does playa see that Nancy had cankles? Put another way, does playa agree with Jackie O’s assessment of the former first lady’s gams, “ugly legs with serious cankles”?

      1. Those are not cankles.

      2. Holy fuck, give it up already.

      3. I’m not liking what I’m seeing there…
        But those aren’t cankles.

        You’re grasping at straws. Go after astrology; that’ll work.

        Hillary Clinton OWNS cankles.

        1. Yes, Hillary has cankles, no question.

        2. I just googled “Nancy Reagan’s cankles” and clicked on to images and guess what pops up first?

          I will admit that there are many more pics of a cankled Hillary than Nancy that show up.

          Okay, enough is enough. Subject closed.

          1. Oh no, you’re cankle obsession is going to last for as long as I can make it last. Subject open indefinitely.

            1. I disagree, I thought “but someone on the Google also said she had cankles” was the perfect ending.

              1. Too late, I have already declared that “cankles” is a meme. Embrace it.

                1. How about that I EMBRACE the fact that my does not have cankles?

        1. Keep in mind that she was a size 4 – at what, 5’3 or 5’4 tops? Not exactly a flattering pic of her legs.

        2. Are we defining cankles to mean anything not 50s pinup girl worthy? All it means is little to no distinction between calf and ankle. If Nancy has cankles then most women have cankles and it’s pretty meaningless.

          1. I wouldn’t date a woman who had cankles.

    2. I pity da fool who does not love this photo.

  18. Boy, Nancy sure stirs the crowd here. It’s like reading how the progs reacted to Scalia’s death!

    Other than that, when I think Nancy I think ‘legalize pot FFS already’.

    As for it curing cancer, relax. It doesn’t.

    But Vice’s documentary ‘Killing Cancer’ showed what is working.

    1. Yeah, I’m pretty disgusted by some of the reactions here. A lot of classless pieces of shit dancing on her grave before the body is even cold. Like she started the whole thing. She probably thought she was doing the right thing. And she did do some good things. She was very pro 2A and by many accounts was the person who got her husband to recognize the AIDS epidemic. Hardly a monster.

      1. It’s hard for a war mongoloiding gun-fetishizing freak to consider that people who value liberty piss on Nancy Reagan’s grave.
        Fk her and fk you for defending that cunt.

        1. You stay classy there buddy.

      2. Yeh, I don’t remember her as being heinous. Save the vitriol for those who deserve it I reckon.

        1. Well you had to personally live through it. The pogrom against “druggies” was intense.

          I still hate Nixon. I still hate Nancy. And I consider myself on the right these days. I used to be a lefty back in the day. Damn them both to hell.

          They saw politics as a blood sport. Literally.

  19. Look I get it. People who have not studied the subject as deeply and extensively as I have are sceptical. I have done quite a bit of literature review for the last 15 years. That study has convinced me that cannabis is a miracle drug.

    Cancer, diabetes, obesity, glaucoma? What other drug has such a range of effects? It is impossible. And yet there it is. Documented widely for animals. The only thing standing in the way of human trials is our government. Despite that there is quite a bit of human research (not to clinical standards) going on underground.

    And Nancy is one of those in on making those studies very difficult or impossible. For political purposes. To punish Democrats.

    You know who else was willing to kill millions for political purposes? Well. She is one of them. And she didn’t have to pull a trigger or open a prison. She killed by suppression of information. She killed by going after witches. Clever girl.

    1. FFS, she was just the First Lady. It’s not like she was introducing bills in congress, or signing executive orders. You’re in full crackpot mode on this.

      1. So you think the effect was small? The first step in passing bills is creating a demand for one. That was her job.

        1. Suicidy has a hard-on for Nancy b/c she was pro-guns. And nobody is more of a pro-gun retard than Suicidy.

          1. MSimon has Mary in his corner. SWEET

            1. That’s another funny trope for you fake libertarians.
              Every time somebody new shows up who reveals you for the frauds you are – i,e. reactionary republicans/gun nuts passing as libertarians – you resort to ”Mary” or ”Tony” or ”sock puppet” or whatever helps you feel you’ve got all the answers covered.
              Fk Nancy Reagan with a diamond-tipped stick. I liked Reagan – senile or not – but she was a cunt who is responsible for much misery,

          2. So you’re against the 2nd amendment? If so, you are really in the wrong place. And it’s not like she’s my favorite person. I just think that going into pants shitting mode, and shrieking obscenities about a 94 year old woman that just died, is bad form.

            But one thing is certain here. You’re an idiot.

      2. Daryl Gates “Just Say No Entry (Til We Bust Yer Door Down)” ft Nancy Reagan

        1. “Nancy Reagan rode shotgun” on a battering ram designed to destroy a wall of the house. And then they threw in a flash bang grenade.


          Flash bangs are still popular with the drug police.

          Reason – A Bogus Warrant, a Burned Baby, and an Immoral War

    2. “sceptical”???? No commies.

      Sweet Godwin, bro. So much more powerful coming from a Jew.

      1. I lived in Calif when Reagan was governor. And that man was deeply into persecuting his enemies. He may have been a product of his times. And the commies deserved it. But the American left in general? And hippies? If the right would have just left them alone their fantasies were relatively harmless. The serious left thought drugs were a distraction and had nothing to do with them. So all Reagan did was to make the left more cohesive.

        And the right is still at it today. The persecutions MUST stop. They just add cadre to the left.

        Of course it works the other way too. See SJWs and Trump.

    3. Holy fuck, you’re a moron.

  20. Thank God Hitler finally died.

    1. Look I get it. You haven’t studied the subject of her cankles as deeply and extensively as I have.

      1. Neither have I. I should probably study it before forming an opinion. So I can have an informed opinion.

  21. Nothing reveals the fake libertarians around here than when they feel compelled to defend the life or legacy of a liberty-hating Republican cunt.
    With luck, hell gets cranked up a few thousand degrees extra to make sure Nancy doesn’t come back as a zombie.

    1. Yeah, everyone is defending her. Your powers of perception are without peer.

      1. He musta missed one or two of my comments.

        1. Not talking about you, MSimon. I’m 100% with you. I’m talking to Suicidy and Playa and all the other fakes who only care about liberty when someone is threatening to take MA GUnZZZZ !!

          1. You sound like a progressive. They talk like that. Are you a faggot cookie?

      2. You’re an idiot, Crusty. Maybe if you could follow the threading here you’d appear to be less of an idiot. But I doubt it.


    Many laboratories have proposed that cannabinoids and endocannabinoids directly inhibit tumor growth in vitro and in animal tumor models through several different pathways. The inhibition of tumor growth and progression of several types of cancers including glioma, glioblastoma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, colon carcinoma, leukemia, and lymphoid tumors have been demonstrated by natural and synthetic cannabinoids, endocannabinoids, endocannabinoid analogs, endocannabinoid transport inhibitors, and endocannabinoid degradation inhibitors. Several different mechanisms have been implicated in the anti-tumorigenic actions of endocannabinoids and include cytotoxic or cytostatic effects, apoptosis induction, and anti-metastatic effects such as inhibition of neo-angiogenesis and tumor cell migration [22]. These effects are dependent on CB1, CB2, transient receptor potential vanilloid type 1 (TRPV1), or are receptor-independent based on the cannabinoid or endocannabinoid and the tissue or tumor cell.

    1. cytotoxic
      apoptosis induction

      1. Dude, at this point, I’m wondering if you’re a plant for the prohibition movement.
        This shit is all so kook nonsense.

        1. Go fk Nancy’s corpse, PLaya.

          1. That’s your secret fetish isn’t it?

    1. “Cancer is a leading cause of death in industrialised countries. So far, the treatments available from the pharmaceuticals mostly have limited efficiency, as well as a significant toxicity and strong undesirable side effects. It is known that the marijuana plant can help in a natural way and relieve symptoms of cancer and chemotherapy: pain relief, nausea, vomiting, greater appetite, improvement of mood, sleep, relationships with the environment? And we all know how important it is to have a good quality of life when fighting against any disease.”

      This blurb hardly supports your argument though, MS. It doesn’t cure which is the point of this debate?

      Also, I thought heart&stroke; and other chronic illnesses (like diabetes) was the main killer. Some types of cancers are among the leading killers but not the leader. Here in North America anyway.

      1. Well cannabis can treat 2/3rds of diabetics. And it doesn’t bother me that you don’t understand how cannabis cures cancer.

        apoptosis induction

        A new generation is coming up who are totally conversant with the literature. My guess is that a LOT of them are supporting Bernie. There are some people who are one issue voters. And one of those issues is Drug Prohibition. Excellent.

        “Truth never triumphs ? its opponents just die out. Thus, Science advances one funeral at a time” – Max Planck

        It took 30 years for Einstein’s ideas to become mainstream. I expect no less from “cannabis cures cancer”.

        You are not going to get the absolute proof you want until cannabis is rescheduled. It will be a while. In the mean time cannabis is curing cancers. Because people who are desperate are not waiting for the absolute proof you desire.

        1. “Because people who are desperate are not waiting for the absolute proof you desire.”

          Nor would I ask them to!

        2. God damn it. Don’t do this to me.

          I like you. You make valuable contributions to the Reason comments.

          You’re off your fucking rocker. Walk it back a touch, would you? This shit is retarded, and it bothers me more than a little bit.

          1. I’m sorry the evidence that I have linked here is not good enough for you. There is plenty more out there NCI has thousands of studies. NIH has thousands (some are the same).

            We know it works in petri dishes. We know it works in animals. We have anecdotes about humans. We know in relation to cancer that cannabis is:

            apoptosis induction

            Those are established facts. Although established in petri dishes and animal studies. Anecdotal evidence re: humans is at least somewhat confirming. There are more than a few doctors of oncology who share my understanding. At least two of them linked here.

            It is not my problem that the evidence is not enough to convince YOU. Be patient. there will be more studies and anecdotes. Eventually you will be convinced or I will be shown to have been blowing smoke.

            I’m an engineer. I’m used to teasing out causes from evidence. This is not crank science as far as I can tell. I have looked at LOTs of NCI and NIH papers. There is confirmation in those papers. I’d say the confirmations runs 90% to 95%. But check for yourself.

            BTW the body’s endocannabinoid system is known for removing cancer cells from the body. Why wouldn’t you expect cannabis (high in THC and CBD – analogs for anandamide and 2-AG) to have similar effects when there are more cancer cells than the body can handle.

            1. The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication


              Here we review the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and anti-tumour actions (inhibition of cell proliferation and migration, induction of apoptosis, reduction of tumour growth) of the cannabinoids in different types of cancer. This review will focus on examining how activation of the endocannabinoid system impacts breast, prostate and bone cancers in both in vitro and in vivo systems. The therapeutic potential of cannabinoids for cancer, as identified in clinical trials, is also discussed. Identification of safe and effective treatments to manage and improve cancer therapy is critical to improve quality of life and reduce unnecessary suffering in cancer patients. In this regard, cannabis-like compounds offer therapeutic potential for the treatment of breast, prostate and bone cancer in patients. Further basic research on anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids as well as clinical trials of cannabinoid therapeutic efficacy in breast, prostate and bone cancer is therefore warranted.

  23. *skims thread*


    *brings in wheelbarrow loaded with industrial-size roll of tin foil*

    Tin foil! Git yer tin foil heah! Perfect for fedoras, hamburgs, porkpies, tricorners, baseball caps, and more!

    1. I’ll take a porkpie!

    2. I’m finishing some ribs. I could use some foil.

    3. I have to admit, when I clicked oaths articles, I figured there might end up being a few dozen comments at best. I had NO idea that some of the folks here would go into pants shitting mode over at the death of a former first lady whose husband is long deceased and has been out of office for 27 years.

      I guess I was wrong. Really, really, wrong. In fact I will go so far as to say that a number of the posters on this article desperately need to go smoke (or preferably vape) a bowl of some really good shit.

  24. It is just an anecdote.

    50-Year-Old Man Cures Lung Cancer With Cannabis Oil, Stuns CBS News

    Not too long ago, a 50-year-old man from Illinois was diagnosed with “incurable inoperable” lung and pericardial heart sac cancer. The doctors told him he had about a year to live, but could opt to undergo chemotherapy to extend his life.

    As you may or may not know, the survival rate of lung cancer is incredibly grim. It is estimated that the prognosis for Stage IA non-small cell lung cancer is less than 50%. Sadly, this drops as the cancer progresses. For a Stage IV patient, the likelihood of recovery is 1%.

    Aware of the odds against him, patient Darren Miller decided to supplement his chemotherapy treatments with cannabis oil. Clearly, he didn’t just want to extend his life, he wanted to save it.

    1. It’s not hard to stun CBS News.

  25. This is the best “somebody died” thread ever.

    1. If she had smoked more pot, she’d still be alive…

  26. Turns out marijuana causes antisocial behaviors – such as spitting on the grave of the recently departed.

    1. Actually mass incarceration supported by the deceased causes that.

      1. No mass incarceration causes disproportionate amounts of sodomy, and recaharounds (infamously named after Jim Reacharound).

  27. You know what’s anti-social? Lending credence to a movement that has put millions behind bars or in the cemetery.
    Rot in hell, Nancy.

  28. “Turns out marijuana causes antisocial behaviors – such as spitting on the grave of the recently departed.”

    The hive of scum would like to add some spit and other bodily excretions.

  29. Just got a message from a friend. His friend has pancreatic cancer that he is treating with CBD oil. Quoting from the message:

    “his blood assays and imaging scans have greatly improved after he started ingesting CBD in September.”

    But of course it is just an anecdote. How many of those is required until it is considered evidence?

  30. I hope she suffers in hell for what she did

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.