Drug Policy

Sad Legislation or SADDEST Legislation?: The Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act of 2017

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Grassley create instant cult classic with idiotic new bill.

|

Allen

The best part of moral panics is that the people succumbing to them don't realize it. Those Salem Witch Trial perpetrators? They knew that witches abounded (read this excellent biography of Samuel Sewall, a judge who literally wore sackcloth and ashes in penance for his role in executing people). Same thing with the folks behind scares over ritual satanic child abuse in the 1980s (hello, Janet Reno) and so many other bizarro scares.

The latest chapter in this comes courtesy of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who have introduced "The Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act of 2017" because…

The legislation would:

  • Provide an enhanced penalty when a person manufactures, creates, distributes, dispenses, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or Schedule II that is:
  • Combined with a beverage or candy product,
  • Marketed or packaged to appear similar to a beverage or candy product, or
  • Modified by flavoring or coloring to appear similar to a candy or beverage product.
screen cap, MSNBC

Which is to say that it would take aim not so much at coke or meth—we await still the introduction of Sour Kids Meth and Nerds (Now With Even More Cocaine)!—but at various marijuana-laced edibles for sale in states that legalized recreational and medical marijuana. Indeed, despite claiming "many instances" of the pusher man wooing innocent boys and girls to the pleasures of coke and meth, Feinstein and Grassley provide no examples in their press releases or legislation. And while it's true that some (legal) pot peddlers have marketed candy-bar-looking products for adults, legalization in Colorado has not increased marijuana use by adolescents.

But why ruin a bad piece of bipartisan legislation being pushed by two senators whose collective age is 166 years old by insisting that they prove their case? If this bill protects just one kid from a candy-flavored drug, it will be worth it. Especially to Feinstein and Grassley.

Related: Buzz Bowl I: Four Loko vs. Joose!

NEXT: Nunes' Info Allegedly Came from White House, Russia's Election Influence Debated, Trump Attacks Freedom Caucus: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hands off my purple drank!

  2. Christ, what a couple of assholes.

  3. I can’t even, waiting for reason in the war on drugs is a foolish hope.

  4. I guess having her tilting at windmills keeps her occupied and it’s better than having her attempt to do something that might actually affect somebody in the real world, but California only gets to choose two Senators and this is what they chose? I don’t ever want to hear anybody in California saying another damn word about Ryan Leaf and the San Diego Chargers.

  5. Anecdotally, if you did a free-word association style psych test/Family Feud-style “Name a drug that tastes like something and what it tastes like.” poll or quiz your top associations are going to be stuff like:

    Amoxicillin::Bubblegum
    Tylenol::Grape
    Fluoride::Oranges
    Cough Drops::Cherry

    Personally, the Amoxicillin::Bubblegum association is more addictive than nicotine and I know the strong association persists across at least three generations. To the point where I almost can’t believe amoxicillin is fighting infections as much as conditioning kids to take their medication.

  6. I think the difference is, as you point out, the Salem witch trial people realized they went crazy, while drug warriors never do.

    1. Sure they do. Just never until they’ve secured that pension check.

  7. There are many instances of drug dealers altering flavor and packaging of cocaine or methamphetamines to appeal to children.

    How to tell Dianne Feinstein is lying: she is making an utterance.

    Show your references, Senator. And no, Facebook posts and “news alerts” by gullible PDs don’t count.

    1. I mean, I don’t know what world she lives in, but around here drugs are expensive and children don’t have money.

      1. Exactly. Are we genuinely concerned that there’s a risk that ten year-old kids are gonna turn into coke-heads because it has a bit of candy flavor? I’m thinking kids are already sufficiently hyper, probably wouldn’t like being on coke, and if the flavor was so enticing, they’d probably be chopping lines of fun dip on a regular basis.

        And they sure-as-hell gonna have to wash a lot of dishes and mow a lot of yards to earn enough allowance to develop a habit.

    2. Actually, re. the last paragraph, it sure looks like

      “Combined with a beverage or candy product,
      Marketed or packaged to appear similar to a beverage or candy product, or
      Modified by flavoring or coloring to appear similar to a candy or beverage product”

      might literally only truthfully apply to marijuana products in states with legalized or medical marijuana.

      Because unlike the meth and coke she mentions, they actually do do that.

      They just don’t market to children (unless those children have a medical marijuana card).

      And they do have all three of those things; edibles can have an unpleasant herbal taste, and sweet covers it up nicely for palatability.)

      1. They do similar things with other drugs. For example, grind up mushrooms and put them in chocolate.

  8. What difference would this legisl’n make? Make it more illegal federally? How could they enforce this in legal states any more than they do existing law against non-candy products in federal schedules 1 & 2?

  9. All teens have a right to get sick on Boone’s Farm at least once .

    1. I know I did. More than once. But it was legal at 18 in those days.

  10. But why ruin a bad piece of bipartisan legislation being pushed by two senators whose collective age is 166 years old by insisting that they prove their case?

    You recalcitrant young buck! Dianne Feinstein found Harvey Milk after he was killed with a Twinkie laced with uppers. She was the first one to discover him. In fact, she’s made her entire career out of being the one. Show her the respect she deserves.

    You’re like Ted Cruz daring to inform Senator Feinstein that the Constitution is a thing.

    1. And NEVER FORGET how then SF mayor Diane Feinstein tipped off the Night Stalker, a serial killer, so he continue his spree.

      http://archives.sfweekly.com/t…..ht-stalker

  11. There’s a secret law restricting eligibility for Senator from California to people with srious brain damage, isn’t there?

  12. Same thing with the folks behind scares over ritual satanic child abuse in the 1980s (hello, Janet Reno)

    I’ve seen some reasonable arguments that there could have been some actual abuse involved in the case she prosecuted, however much the “Satanic abuse” testimony was bullshit. I’ve therefore come to suspect that she was behaving like a typical prosecutor, and didn’t so much believe in the Satanic allegations as accept that they were useful means to a conviction. I don’t really find that understanding especially comforting, though.

  13. Sour Kids Meths sounds like it would be really bad for your teeth.

  14. I am a bit curious as to who is in the second image above. And I want to see if commenting works again.

  15. “The latest chapter in this comes courtesy of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who have introduced “The Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act of 2017″ because..”

    At least they didn’t give it a nauseating name like “Jessie’s Law.”

    1. That’s because they couldn’t find an actual kid that this law would have “saved”.

  16. Geez. Every time I read something about Feinstein she’s crazier than the last story.

  17. That asshole had to shoot Milk and give us this useless commie box

  18. Both Feinstein and Grassley are past their sell-by dates. Two arguments in favor of term limits, that is for sure.

  19. Nick,
    Last post of the day; 23 comments in 8 hours?
    Do you have any comments? And if not why not?
    I hope you have all sorts of new sources of income, because I’m not alone in assuring you that you have zero source of income from me.

    1. It’s not Lucy’s fault.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.