Drug War

As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?

It isn't enough to end just one restrictive law, we have to disempower the prohibitionists.

|

Marijuana "does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse," the Drug Enforcement Administration sniffed in an August public announcement refusing to consider easing restrictions on the stuff. The announcement seemed to deliberately miss the point since a majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana for fun, not just medicine. That the feds are fighting a rear-guard action on the issue is apparent from the fact that half the states in the country are currently ignoring D.C. on the issue, legalizing the sale and use of marijuana for recreation or sometimes broadly defined medicinal purposes. Arizona and California, at least, look poised to further loosen the law in November, with others to follow.

But as marijuana prohibition falls, the drug cops have a backup plan. Just weeks after the marijuana announcement, the federal regulator of stuff that makes us feel good "announced its intention to place the active materials in the kratom plant into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in order to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety." The original sin of the Southeast Asia-sourced plant is "its ability to produce opioid-like effects and [that it] is often marketed as a legal alternative to controlled substances."

Which makes the stuff a potentially handy reefer madness substitute if you need a new drug to stand in for a relegalizing old one as you try to justify the continued funding of an expensive and potent federal agency. After all, that agency is staffed by well-paid employees who've come to enjoy using the intrusive powers and dangerous toys they've been given to satisfy the whims of the moral scolds in our midst.

We've been down this path before. As Prohibition, America's first national effort to penalize people for taking pleasure in imbibing psychoactive substances, became increasingly unpopular and widely flouted at the end of the 1920s, an assistant commissioner for the United States Bureau of Prohibition cooked up a successor project. Harry Anslinger left his old gig and took on the role of commissioner of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics—a predecessor agency to the DEA—and helped launch the national crusade against marijuana. It was a newly demonized intoxicant to give purpose to the power and personnel that had been assembled for the faltering crusade against booze.

"This propitious marriage of state power and moral suasion would yield a dramatic expansion of federal policing and an increase of state and local policing in the quasi-military sphere of crime control," Harvard historian Lisa McGirr writes in her 2015 book, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State.

"The war on alcohol and the war on drugs were symbiotic campaigns," McGirr told Reason in an interview. "Those two campaigns emerged together, [and] they had the same shared…logic. Many of the same individuals were involved in both campaigns."

McGirr sees the "federal penal state" of intrusive policing and mass incarceration that arose during Prohibition as the result of the combined efforts of old-time religious scolds who disapproved of alcohol use and Progressives who were eager to use state power to address what they saw as social ills. Together they nationalized what had traditionally been an individual, local, or state concern, gave the government unprecedented power to regulate people's lives, and escalated their efforts as people refused to submit.

But even as it was a consequence of growing state power, Prohibition also helped to normalize the idea that the federal government could and should boss us around.

"Faced with the unintended consequences of Prohibition, many men and women began to rethink their commitments to the war on alcohol, but they did not altogether reject the state's right to police and punish the use of other recreational narcotics," McGirr adds in her book.

People also grew accustomed to an activist and intrusive state overall, paving the way for the New Deal and the regulatory state of today. A massive government apparatus, once created, can be used for any purpose its masters desire. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne famously noted. But war doesn't necessarily require ships and planes launched against other nations; it can be waged against a government's own people by police who are empowered by the law to see enemies behind every door.

Then as now, the law was unevenly enforced. If you were a New York socialite during Prohibition, you could continue to drink illicit booze at parties or in speakeasies in relative safety since you weren't considered part of a "problem" population and could push back against authorities—urban ethnics were deliberately targeted for harsher treatment when they broke the law, as were rural blacks. Likewise, Malia Obama was at little risk of more than a parental tongue-lashing when she was caught smoking a joint last month while young people—African-Americans, in particular–whose fathers don't reside in the White House often suffer nastier consequences in the absence of helpful political connections.

Even for booze, the double standard for enforcement remains. While mayor of New York City, national nanny Michael Bloomberg ceaselessly sought to mold and scold his own suffering subjects as he broke the law himself to quaff wine in public. "They were behaving," he said of his friends who were given a pass by police. He's not one of those people, you know, and so he and his buddies shouldn't have to obey rules meant to rein in "problem" groups.

So the desire to control remains in place, nurtured by policy-makers and their supporters who never intend themselves to be the target of enforcement. That desire remains even as public pushback causes yet another prohibition to stumble and fall. Prohibition has its own logic—of control and power—that has very little to do with the specific prohibition at any given moment. Those who would mold the world to suit their vision see no reason to back off their efforts, they've created a vast bureaucracy of enforcers who make their living pushing us around, and they've accustomed us to a state that pokes and prods us at every turn.

So celebrate the relegalization of marijuana for sure. Just don't convince yourself that it means we've seen the end of prohibition, or of the abuses that intrusive government brings. The next big prohibition might be kratom, or another drug, or a grab-bag of substances and activities of which our rulers disapprove. What is banned matters less than the fact of the ban and the apparatus that keeps the ban in place.

Winning doesn't mean ending a prohibition, it means disempowering the prohibitionists.

Advertisement

NEXT: Gary Johnson Understands One Thing Much Better Than Trump or Clinton: How to Fix America's Immigration System

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. Safe spaces for trolls. I would vote for Satan Himself if he’d ban those infernal nooks.

    Jill Stein sanctimoniously approves this message.

  2. If any of this stuff is to be illegal, which it shouldn’t be, the agency scheduling the drugs and the agency doing the enforcement have to be separated. Classification decisions should be science and risk based, not based on retaining agency employment and funding. As it stands now there’s a gross conflict of interest. Of course the best course of action is to legalize it all and to shitcan the agency entirely but that’s fantasyland in today’s USA.

    1. There is no debate and no compromise. The DEA should not exist as it is an unconstitutional abomination. That’s where we start, and were we stay.

      1. ^Alcohol Prohibition was an incredibly stupid idea, but at least a constitutional amendment was passed to give the federal government the power to ban alcohol. Same government, same Constitution decades later, and viola! magically, t the federal government suddenly doesn’t need an amendment to enforce Prohibition.

        1. We don’t even need a Congress at all anymore. Might as well just send them home and save the money, let the newly elected executive rule by fiat. Obama has paved the way, Hillary will bring it full realization.

        2. But remember – the entire legal system is based on precedent!

          If this drug stuff ever comes before the Supreme Court, it’s game over! If it required a Constitutional Amendment before to ban intoxicating substances, surely it requires one today! Unanimous smack-down opinion incoming! Take that drug warriors!

          1. It has and thanks to the same backwards thinking of the new deal progressives, the courts in the 70’s used the famous wheat farmer case involving the commerce clause. I personally think it’s an abuse of it, and obviously wasn’t well argued against, for both the wheat farmer and the marijuana case. See when I read the commerce clause, I don’t see how the government can control personal property, I read it as regulate commerce, not prohibit commerce. It’s perversions of the constitution like this, that leads the 3% to revolt against the king, so to speak. If your not aware, one of the reasons our country went to war against King George, was not just high taxes, it was because of commerce prohibitions, the right to bear arms, and soldiers (police) who treated the population as second class… You know, raiding, bossing around, arresting, unwarranted search and seizure. Over 200+ years and how quickly society forgets, and how quickly we forget the sacrifices that the 3% took to secure our freedoms, and we are so quick to piss it away for the “good of society.”

  3. Want to piss off a progressive? Point out the drug war was a progressive project created and supported by progressives and instituted in the 30’s by a progressive president. The only thing that pisses them off more is to point out that high school dropouts are the most loyal progressive supporters and have consistently voted blue for decades.

    1. I would love to confront my progressive friends with this kind of data. To save me Google time could you kindly post the best links? Thx

      1. No reason to link to articles showing that FDR started the war in marijuana in 1937 with the marijuana tax act. That takes 5 seconds on google. As far as high school dropouts voting progressive I like to reference this NY Times article that lays out that history nicely.

        http://elections.nytimes.com/2…..polls.html

    2. Are you fucking kidding me? You can’t even convince the history illiterate retards that the progressives were the driving force behind alcohol prohibition. They are literally living in their own make believe reality.

      1. The New Yorker once ran a sentence to the effect of “surprisingly, even some progressives supported eugenics too”. They totally neglected to name, or even mention, who those other eugenics supporters were.

        1. You mean like asking if you know who else supported Eugenics?

        2. Hopefully, in a hundred years, they’ll be writing something similar about the huge government health care monopolies created in the 20th and 21st centuries…

      2. The historically illiterate include people at Reason, I am sorry to say – they promoted Stephen Prothero’s *Why Liberals Are Willing the Culture Wars,* in which Prohibition is described Prohibition as a conservative policy opposed by courageous liberals.

        (And Prothero was using “liberal” to include progs – cue outrage from libertarians about “they want to steal our word!”)

        1. Why Liberals are *Winning* the Culture Wars

        2. I’m really starting to buy into the theory that progressives are going to team up with religious fundies, once again, to end humanity once and for all.

          1. There has traditionally been what you might call a Religious Left in this country. There still is, judging by the people saying that Jesus wants higher taxes.

            Progs like to obscure this fact in favor of a narrative of brave secularists (them) versus benighted tractor-pulling right-wing fundamentalists (their adversaries).

            1. Some of the Reason staff, and I’m sorry to say some of the commenters, seem to partially buy into this narrative.

              Remember that poll question Reason promoted about whether the government should enforce conventional morality, with no counterpart question about whether the government should enforce *unconventional* morality.

            2. judging by the people saying that Jesus wants higher taxes.

              Those are just the dumbshit assholes who like to pull up Jesus, an entity which they 5 minutes ago denied to have ever existed, to prove how socialism is god’s work.

              But there exists a much more sinister and dangerous puritan holier than thou sickness that progressives share intimately with religious fundamentalists.

              1. I guess I’d have to know your definition of “puritan” and “religious fundamentalists.”

              2. That’s what bugs the living shit out of me when it comes to progs and Jesus. They’ll bash Christianity and make light of Jesus of Nazareth one minute and the next, they’re citing him shamelessly using him to score cheap political points about some bull shit welfare policy they promote or support.

                They’re assholes and I’m pretty sure Jesus would have little choice and conclude as much.

            3. Religion is split roughly evenly between the left and right. On the left you have blacks, hispanics, and half of catholics.

              The religious types aren’t the controlling base on the left the way they generally are on the right, but they are certainly pandered to as much as necessary, and there is obviously a core nanny state instinct on the left that really loves to protect people from free choices.

            4. Progs like to obscure this fact

              As do a lot of conservatives and libertarians who talk as if the whole left is a bunch of atheists, which is far from the truth. Pretty much all of the old main line protestant denominations, Anglican denominations and a lot of Catholics (starting with the Pope) are pretty left wing.

        3. Promoting a book (or more accurately, interviewing an author) doesn’t mean they endorse every single thing he wrote.

      3. Well sure. Prohibition started first at the state level in places like Kentucky and was supported by religious fanatics and the KKK. Not typically things associated with Progressives.

        1. That’s why early Prohibition laws were called “Maine laws.”

    3. Most proggies I know are puritans and do not have a problem with prohibition of any kind. They may laugh at alcohol prohibition now as they sip their merlot, but they also are of a mindset that “government/scientists know best.” So if tomorrow, some huge government funded research studied suggested that alcohol is bad for you even in small amounts, they would be all for banning it again. Many proggies are also uncomfortable with pot legalization and are trying to rationalize against it, even going so far as to say that prison helps druggies.

  4. The Feds didn’t fire one liquor cop when prohibition ended; they seamlessly moved over to drug enforcement. Likewise when at last we wrestle the freedom to smoke weed away from the government the DEA will announce that they never really had a problem with weed in the first place and that they are, and in fact always were, much more focused on “hard drugs”, etc.

    Again not one cop will be laid off. In fact they will announce that they need more money, and probably get it.

  5. “…disempowering the prohibitionists”

    Sometimes it is brought harshly home how sadly optimistic libertarian principles seem, brought out into the light of day (i.e.: put up against the realities of amoral people whose iron grip on wealth and power depends entirely on maintaining the status quo).

    I’ve often noticed that reformers are remiss/unrealistic in failing to address the fact that all cronyism, market distortion, regulatory whoring, legislator purchasing, etc., etc, BENEFITS SOMEONE. Powerful someones who will not easily give up “things as they are”. They (we) seem to think it’s enough to rationally present the case for “doing the right thing” or pointing out “what’s wrong with the current state of x”. It is not. These people have both hands dug rigidly into the corrupt teat(s) of the status quo, and will not easily let go. This must be confronted head-on, their actions disallowed, shamed…which, I guess, presupposes a morality and a degree of common purpose that doesn’t really exist.

    Look at the case of the military, supposed bastion of patriotism and service and it’s being run like a fucking money spigot! And the primary goal of all upper-level brass is to keep the spigot open and flowing freely. If THOSE guys are corrupt (and they are), how relatively easy is it for our “protect-and-serve” boys in blue to hide behind union contracts negotiated between whores.

    So, good luck with the “disempowering”.

    1. Not entirely disagreeing with you, but libertarianism isn’t some pie-in-the-sky misplaced optimism.

      I like to say that libertarianism is the ultimate pragmatism over the long term.

      IOW all the protectionism/cronyism crap that certain special interest groups do to other groups is all self-destructive over the long term.

      Look at Venezuela. In 3 to 4 decades (always longer than 2 election cycles), we see the long term damage to everyone. The rich Socialist Party cronies at the top seem to be enjoying banquets while the people in the street starve, but when the violent revolution starts (soon), Maduro is deposed/assassinated/executed, these Socialists will be literally running for their lives. Some of them will be killed or imprisoned, many will not keep their ill-gotten gains, and many will be forced into exile.

      Some will do well, having moved their stolen money out of the country and secured an escape route–it may seem that they have won, but I figure they would look at their self-imposed exile from their homeland with some, if not a lot of, regret. I’m sure to some degree they’re just plain sociopaths and don’t feel guilt, but even a sociopath will chafe at knowing they can’t go home without a bunch of people looking to kill them as soon as they arrive.

      1. Over the long term, people learn first-hand that “Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.” It’s kind of the “why can’t we all just get along” idea, which may seem pie-in-the-sky, but every so often, Reason will remind us that over time, things are really getting better. Overall, violence is decreasing, poverty is decreasing, and so on. So we ARE getting along, in the aggregate, better than before. Liberty will probably also increase as more people learn how to get along politically.

    2. While agreeing with close to everything you have to say, I don’t think ‘hands dug rigidly into the corrupt teat(s)’ is a persuasive metaphor, at least not to one who has actually spent time milking dairy animals.

      That said, you may enjoy my recent videos, one of which was shown on Fox News in Washington DC 30 times last week, the other of which started the same run today. I tried to confront head-on …

      https://youtu.be/GWYIEL27KzA

      1. Nice twist on the tough guy, law and order sheriff.

    3. Was a typo; he meant “disemboweling”

    4. Was a typo; he meant “disemboweling”

  6. “As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?”

    I’m going with Speech Or Guns. (probably should be And).

    1. Based on California government TV ads, I’m pretty sure it’s e-cigs.

  7. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  8. If it’s not drugs it will be food and drink. Hell they’ll pass a law making sunblock mandatory soon

  9. Tobacco. The answer is “tobacco”

    1. They would ban tobacco, but would soon be jonesing for the lost tax revenue.

  10. Every drug sold in America is controlled by the government. As Thomas Szasz argued, the need is to end “drug socialism” by getting the US out of the drug regulation business and restore the right to self-medicate. Libertarians often muddy the waters by advocating “medical marijuana,” and by demonizing opioids and other drugs.

    1. I’m fairly certain that most libertarians around here would argue that opiates should be legal.

      While there may be more ink spilled about legalizing weed, that has more to do with what’s politically plausible and what’s happening out there in the real world.

      1. I agree, non-opiates are often less addictive than cigarettes or alcohol. Particularly your non-opiate party drugs. Mainly psychology addictive if that. You would think pot, coke, mdma would all be no brainers when it comes to legalization. Of course they are still banging that gateway nonsense but it’s becoming harder to keep up that lie. Opiates should be legal too but it’s a little steeper battlefield due to the addiction aspect.

      2. “I’m fairly certain that most libertarians around here would argue that opiates should be legal”

        I’m 100% certain that any libertarian will make that case. Do you own yourself, or not? If you don’t, what are you? A slave? How are you any better than that?

        1. Libertarians tend to be a fairly argumentative group, that’s why I used the qualifier ‘most’.

        2. If there is a “true libertarian” litmus test, drug prohibition is probably it.

      3. Yeah, I don’t find many libertarians who don’t think all drugs should be legalized. Weed is just the only one that’s remotely possible in the near term. And sadly, most people just aren’t open to the principled argument about self ownership.

  11. Revolution is the only recourse!
    robertsrevolution.net

  12. The federal government just banned kratom this month and put it on schedule 1. A pretty much harmless herb with very mild effects, probably similar to coffee or tea.

    Get with the program, Reason. You don’t really have to set around wondering about what they will ban next, just pay a little attention.

    1. Where was this article before it was posted to H&R a few minutes ago? Quite a few posters whose handles I don’t recognize up above.

      1. Yeah, I just noticed that also. No idea.

        1. Grah! The interloper weapon is pathetic! The honourable Vy’keen pity you! I will replace it!

      2. Need an editor willing to build a wall. Make Reason great again.

        1. Ask Mexico for advice, seems they have the expertise now.

      3. The unfamiliar commenters likely followed a social media link here.

        1. Wow, we have our own Drudgebot status now? Wow!

  13. Also, cannabis regulation is not winding down. There are only 3 states and DC where you can now possess even a moderate amount of the stuff without risking being thrown into a rape cage and having your life ruined forever.

    Fuck, there is optimism and then there is over the top naivete.

    1. But legalizing marijuana is now a majority public opinion. There is reason for optimism.

    2. I think things are heading toward legalization of cannabis. But there will be plenty of regulation.

  14. “Marijuana “does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States”.

    —-DEA

    That’s like saying we shouldn’t legalize it because it’s illegal.

    Our tax dollars at work!

    1. And there’s no mention of all the roadblocks the government put in the way of conducting any of the medical research that might have shown marijuana had medical benefits.

      1. Shush, it’s for the children.

  15. As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?

    Tobacco, vaping, guns, fortified alcohol, alcohol served in ‘high impact areas’, Uber, Lyft, Marijuana grown or sold outside of the state-sanctioned and limited systems, all the other currently illegal drugs plus the new ones being classified, mentioning a candidate within 60 days of an election, criticism of global warming theory, my house if I don’t pay my property taxes, AirBnB, Arcade City, triggering speech, hate speech, driverless cars…

    I could go on.

    1. You could go on for a long time and there’s not one thing you could say about banning something that the sociopath control freaks in our government will not love the idea of.

  16. If coffee were a new thing that had just been discovered by Americans in the last few years and becoming popular, I can 100% fucking guarantee you that after a few months of ‘scary new drug’ stories by local media, that it would become a scheduled drug by the DEA. If you don’t believe that, your head is so firmly implanted in your own ass that you’re going to die of asphyxiation any moment now. And good riddance.

  17. Thingee!

  18. Porn because you know “human trafficking”.

    1. Oh, they want to. They want to so badly, just give them time to figure out how to exempt themselves…

      1. Well the top men to constantly “investigate” even if they have to do it at home.

        1. Sounds legit. Let’s give the green light. A few trillion should do to fight this menace.

          1. I will require internet access in my jail cell for “academic” reasons.

            1. Free sex change maybe, intertoobz, maybe not.

  19. Initially we might agree that there are good intentions behind these and other regulations, but as time goes on (now, for example), it’s impossible to believe there is anything here beyond sheer power.

    1. With the DEA, there was never any good intentions. If you believe otherwise, please elaborate.

      1. Drug prohibitions, not the DEA. Pretty obvious that there would be “unintended” consequences that would lead to disaster, but as Sowell comments, motivation is all that matters to the chattering classes, not outcomes.

      2. Even if they had them, they’re still assholes. Forcing people at gunpoint to not do something that only harms themselves is always wrong.

    2. I think the definition of “good intentions” has been watered down in any case.

      It has come to mean “a subjective feeling of benevolence.”

      Even someone with such a subjective good feeling can, IMHO, have bad intentions, if we consider the analogy of criminal intent. If you’re reckless or heedless enough in causing an illegal result you can be said to have intended the result legally, even if you weren’t thinking about causing the result when you were doing the reckless or heedless thing.

      Or as people here have said, forseeable consequences are not unintended.

      1. Yes, yes, and yes.

        But we all know people, have friends, family, whatever, who really do buy into that garbage, and we know that they are not intentionally evil. And if we do regard these people as consciously evil, it’s hard to have any kind of constructive dialog whatever.

        So I have to come back to trying to convince myself that some of them really do intend for things to get better. Admittedly, it becomes more and more difficult.

        1. I wasn’t speaking of all-encompassing evil, but of support for specific bad policies.

          I suppose I am kind of shy of the term “good intentions” because I read this column by Michael Kinsley (available here behind a paywall) suggesting that when conservatives impute “good intentions” to progs, it means they (the conservatives) may *not* have good intentions, and are trying to piggyback on the niceness of the progs.

          In other words, by imputing “good intentions” to progs, conservatives opened themselves up to attack by progs like Michael Kinsley – “they *admit* we have good intentions, I wish I could say the same for them.”

          So it’s a concession I’m not willing to make.

          1. I would use a phrase like “genuinely *feel* they’re doing something good.”

        2. The friends or family you know who just accept these things are in the ‘well, if they weren’t doing anything wrong’ camp. The same bunch who accept police brutality in the same light. Hitler’s Germany could have never existed without this fundamental flaw in human nature. Like I always say, conservatives and liberals are people who care very much about their own rights, but not a damn bit about other’s rights. Libertarians are a bunch of weirdos who care about everyone’s rights. What was that famous saying about ‘and when they came for me, there was no one left…’

          1. My narrower point was that if someone is dangerously wrong, don’t sugarcoat it, just say they endorse bad policies. I didn’t say call anyone a nazi.

            And we really have to recognize the common usage of “liberal” and “conservative” – I’m afraid the latter word is generally interpreted to include a bunch of you guys.

            Usage is not intrinsically right or wrong, it’s a matter of generally-understood definitions.

            1. Reason recently had an article about people selling something they called “mayonnaise” with didn’t have any eggs in it.

              I think the current usage is that mayonnaise has eggs in it, but usage can change. Until it does, either don’t call it mayonnaise or else say in big bold type that this is a NEW KIND of mayonnaise WITHOUT EGGS.

              Otherwise people misunderstand each other.

              1. The ersatz sandwich spread was by custom and definition NOT MAYONNAISE. It is fraud-in-a-jar. In anarchotopia the plant would’ve been wrecked, the jars smashed, and the owner horsewhipped, tarred and feathered for the fraudulent misbranding. Unfortunately for liberty, the government has crowded out righteous, vigilant direct action and replaced it with captured and incompetent bureaucracies that are easily bribed to allow this disgusting pea-protein filth to be fraudulently hawked despite the fact the only buyers are in-house shills faking demand to fleece another round of venture capital marks.

            2. I was replying to DaveH. But back to your post.

              I’ll be honest, I have no fucking idea what conservative means. Are we talking about 19th century socially conservative, or are we referring to economic conservatism as in right wing capitalism?

              Liberal is definitely now a perverted definition of the word which now apparently is the same as leftist, which is pretty much the opposite of classical liberalism.

              Up is down, right is left, black is white, get the brawndo and water the sheep.

              1. The terms are so broad that one is tempted to throw up one’s hands and say “no labels, dude, I’m just a guy with common sense.” But then you get Mike Bloomberg.

                So at the very least, these terms can give some idea of what you’re *not.*

                A conservative is *not* Mike Bloomberg in the traditional usage of the term.

          2. Actually, I don’t really care all that much about other people’s rights, except for the fact that they DO impact my rights. And even if the loss of someone else’s rights don’t affect me directly today there’s always a possibility that the precedent it sets will fuck me over at some point in the future.

            So even if I’m being an entirely selfish S.O.B. it is still in my best interest to help defend other people’s rights.

            1. Ye ole injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere proposition.

              1. I also just find it a bit a bit annoyingly sanctimonious to declare that, “My political philosophy is better than yours, because unlike you, I care about other people.”

                It’s the flip side of all those internet tough guys who claim that when something bad happens they would have flipped out and gone all badass ninja.

    3. Good intentions is really a terrible argument.

      Who exactly can we point to that had bad intentions? Hitler thought he was doing the world a service. I’m sure he genuinely believed himself to be some kind of saint.

  20. Let’s just get it over with – somebody tell the Chinese that powdered DEA-agent bone is the most potent aphrodisiac known to mankind.

  21. “As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?”

    Guns. A Hillary-loaded Supreme Court will gut the Second Amendment. Our millennial libertarian hopes are programmed anti-gunners and the NRA members are getting older.

  22. They’re going to have to get pretty imaginative – so many of the culture wars have been lost without any going back in the foreseeable future; booze, guilt-free fornication, porn, abortion, divorce, inter-racial couples, weed…. Marriage laws are getting flayed, people are screaming for decriminalization of sex work, and you can’t call anyone a faggot any longer and expect to keep your teeth.

    I predict that “sex trafficking” will be a thing for a few years, but will get ignored once people get tired of being lied to with fake statistics.

    1. People getting put on secret lists and being made modern day lepers for life for sexting their 17 year old classmates.

      Would you like about a million more examples of how instead of moving towards enlightenment, we are instead moving towards a new dark ages? How about for starters how anyone using medical cannabis have now been denied their 2nd amendment rights?

      1. It’s amazing to me how we seem to be more puritan than the puritans. That’s including and often especially the yutes of today. That’s just lame and sad. I came of age in the 70’s and I wouldn’t even had known what to think about kids today.

        1. I would love to go back to where we were in the 70s. Except for the intertoobz. I wants me intertoobz.

          1. Thems intertoobz sure beats having to go to the convenience stores or mini-markets and having to sheepishly request the adult magazine available for sale.

            1. They also beat the hell out doing whatever compared to me ordering something from Amazon that I couldn’t have found traveling the world, and having at my front door 2 hours later, shipping free.

              We live in a time of great wonder. And unfortunately, we still live in a world of despots who want to fuck all of that up for their own greed.

              1. We may live in a time of great wonder, but we most assuredly live in an electronic cage.

                Nevertheless, Pornhub.com rocks. So what if Langley knows I favor tall slender milfs?

                1. By favoring milfs of any sort you are much better off.

    1. What do you mean “get”?

      1. My being, per se, is one fornicatingly awesome high.

        1. Pervert! Get on the list!

    2. You’re on the list, mister. And especially no going to Canada.

      1. But helpful. Tonight is the premiere.

      2. I figured it wasn’t worth commenting on, because I thought most people around here would get the reference.

        Anyways, I though tonight’s episode was kind of meh. I did chuckle a bit at the volleyball coverage, and the sit, stand, or kneel for America bit. But other than that, it mostly felt like a getting up to speed episode, with a lot of rehashed jokes, in order to setup future episodes.

        Hopefully, the future episodes will have something more than pointing out that Trump vs. Clinton is like choosing between a douche and a turd, since they already did that idea 12 years ago.

    3. You wanna get high?

      I’m old.

      1. John Denver was soooo totally baked when he wrote that song

  23. “The bathroom line that sums up the tech industry’s gender problem”
    […]
    “The image of hoodie-wearing guys queued outside the men’s loo and a lone female walking out the door of the women’s is a symbol of the Silicon Valley’s gender problem.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..223227.php

    Pretty sure it’s the “problem” for SJWs, not a problem for “Silicon Valley”.

    1. My miniarchist friend, did you think that anybody here, or formerly here, including the likes of Elemenope, Joe from Lowell, Tony, or Tulpa, would have a problem with this?

    2. So does that mean that the lines for the women’s room at concerts and sporting events prove that women are over represented at concerts and sports?

    3. So, you’re saying that Silicon Valley gives special privileges to women, like uncrowded bathrooms?

      Some of these men need to proclaim themselves transgendered so they can avoid the line at the men’s room.

      /sarc

      1. “I’m gender-fluid, dude, when the line at the men’s room is longer I’m a woman, and when the line at the ladies’ room is longer I’m a man.”

        1. They’ve literally figured out a way to have a cake and eat it too!

        2. Or, we could just do what the ultra enlightened socialist French are apparently now doing, and piss in the streets whenever the mood hits. I lost the link, sorry, you can do the research. Socialist utopias are utopia.

          1. It’s OK, that’s also San Francisco.

          2. Let he who hasn’t pissed in an alley after closing time throw the first stone.

            1. I mean, unless it’s not in the alley, and instead right in the street in front of the family waiting for their taxi. Just saying, not wanting to crucify anyone for pissing in the alley, but it might be civilized to at least go in the alley.

    4. “The bathroom line that sums up the tech industry’s gender problem”

      Someone should point out that at many “tech conferences,” people of Indian subcontinental extraction are dramatically over-represented. Wonder why, instead, they’re focusing on this gender thing?

      Couldn’t have anything to do with the women in HR being served by focusing on the supposed “problem” of a lack of women, and embarrassed by focusing on the exploitation of H1Bs to suppress wages, could it?

  24. Unfortunately, the centralized socialist state’s central committee still considers other drugs like LSD, Psilocybin, and MDMA illegal – as if we don’t have a natural right to control our own bodies.

    1. I tried to introduce my students (University students) to the idea of controlling our own bodies and drug legalization and they were adamant that the state had an interest in order including what people put in their own bodies. Most millenials are a bunch of damn squares I tell ya! And I know from statistics that the majority of them have at least tried MJ but still they want to put people in jail over it. I couldn’t believe it at the time. I was thinking serouisly noone at least wants to defend MJ legalization!? I’m telling you millenials in my experience (I am one at 26) are a bunch of authoritarian nutjobs.

      1. I have no problem believing you. You need to talk to Reason writers.

  25. Calling it now control freaks will ban sex without following government procedures and even permission.

  26. OT: Found out today that I passed the bar exam. When I’m sworn in two weeks from now, this will be what the rest of America hears.

    1. Are the only 2 questions now:

      What is illegal for the peasants?

      a. Nothing

      b. Everything

      What is illegal for Hillary?

      a. Nothing

      b. Everything

      Is 50% a pass?

      1. Well, you’d be happy to hear that a lot of the exam questions consisted of mortgages and priority of filings and nothing about Hilthug. 🙂

        1. I’m not happy. I mean, about the injustices of our ‘justice’ system. But I’m happy for you. My wife is a lawyer, but not a US lawyer. I told her that if she wants to become a lawyer here, just remember that everything is illegal if you’re not a member of the politically connected class. She’s still being astonished by the astonishingly unfreedom of the world’s freest peoples.

    2. First client: Me.

      Is this trademarked?
      If not, how can I get it?

      1. I would give you free advice, ’cause that’s about how much it’s worth. But even then, it would still be illegal…

        1. That’s not nice. I’d give you free legal advice!

          Still waiting on the MPREs?

          1. Nope, passed that back in April. I just need to be officially sworn in and pay my Lawyers’ Guild fees.

      2. I will say this: just because there’s no ? or ? doesn’t mean the thing isn’t trademarked.

  27. It’s obvious isn’t it?

    Hate speech.

  28. Serious question: What do the, um, authorities these days do to a kid who spins around until xi gets dizzy?

    1. They go on the list.

    2. We need a bunch of breathless stories to demonize the spinning game.

  29. just as Patrick answered I am inspired that you can earn $5103 in 1 month on the internet . see this website

    ?????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

  30. my friend’s aunt makes $82 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $17576 just working on the computer for a few hours. look at this site

    ?????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

  31. Upon first examination, I read the last line as, “Winning doesn’t mean ending a prohibition, it means disemboweling the prohibitionists.”

    While I thought the sentiment was a tad extreme, I can understand the thoughts and feelings of vexation.

  32. At the moment, Christianity looks like the next candidate — with you so-called “libertarians” cheering the jackboots.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.