– The Cannabis Defense Coalition is closely following another trial – this one in Mason County. The defendants, Karen Mower and John Reed, were charged after a police raid on their home found 38 plants. Both are authorized patients. Mower is a terminally ill woman in her 40s who’s been given only 2 years to live by doctors, but the judge has disallowed a medical defense. The next pre-trial hearing is on Monday, June 8 at the Mason County Courthouse in Shelton. The CDC will be arranging for carpools so that concerned citizens can attend the hearing.
– Scott Morgan reminds us that despite what the U.S. Attorney’s office in Seattle keeps saying, the initial arrest and prosecution of Marc Emery was motivated by Emery’s politics more than anything else. In Emery’s home province of Ontario, lawyers are preparing a case that will challenge Canada’s marijuana prohibition in court.
– New York Times columnist Nick Kristof recently posted a query about drug legalization to his facebook account, soliciting feedback for a column this week. It’s great to see some of the most well-respected journalists in the country starting to tackle this question. Here are what I consider the 5 most important reasons the U.S. should go down that path right now:
1. Reducing law enforcement/incarceration expenses – You can just peek ahead to the section below on LEAP’s Howard Woolridge for a good rundown on this one. He talks about the law enforcement side of the equation when it comes to marijuana, but the incarceration costs for all drug users is an even more enormous expense that would be greatly diminished if we invested public funds into treatment. We sometimes think of the economic benefits of ending drug prohibition from the standpoint of how much money would be raised from taxing it, but the real savings come from the amount of money we won’t spend trying to put the 20-30 million Americans who either use or distribute drugs through our criminal justice system. We’re in a very serious economic crisis across the country right now, and while ending drug prohibition won’t solve the problem alone, the problem is virtually unsolvable without reducing the amount of public money that we spend incarcerating as many people as we do.
2. Improving the situation in Mexico – The decades long “war on drugs” had one major effect on drug trafficking. It successfully pushed control of the supply chain to a place where American law couldn’t reach it – Mexico. Now, the Mexican government is completely unable to deal with an illegal industry that pulls in tens of billions of dollars per year from American drug consumption. This has had devastating effects on Mexico’s economy and even more dire consequences for its security.
3. Keeping drugs out the hands of children – Without a regulated market for recreational drugs, the supply chains are run by criminal organizations who have zero incentive to keep drugs out of the hands of children. This has led to a situation where children have greater access to dangerous drugs, and even worse, often become easily dispensible pawns to be used for risky border crossings and other dangerous situations. You can solve both of these problems by setting up regulated markets for drugs.
4. Improving public health – Drug abuse and mental illness are two very costly health problems that feed off of each other. Our emphasis on incarcerating people in order to combat drug addiction doesn’t work and it makes the problem worse. Decriminalization of personal drug use is a vital first step in reducing the public health costs associated with addiction. Allowing doctors to prescribe drugs to addicts is another necessary step on this path, along with needle exchanges and other effective ways to mitigate the effects of drug addiction on our overall public health. In countries where these tactics have been done, they’ve been extraordinarily successful, both at reducing public health problems and lowering drug abuse rates.
5. Setting an example for how other countries can help reduce global organized crime and terrorism – When it comes to the divide in international drug law reform, the United States is on the same side as countries like Iran, Russia, and China, and opposed to countries like Switzerland, Portugal, and Canada, who’ve had greater success in dealing with drug addiction. The result is that the demand for illegal drugs (primarily heroin) is fueling the resurgence in the power of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan in a very similar fashion to how American drug consumption has been fueling Mexican drug gangs. It’s vital that we switch sides in this debate and start working with the countries that are boldly using reason, compassion, and empiricism to deal with this issue and reduce the demand for heroin. As the numbers of drug users rise dramatically in emerging nations like China, an inability to keep that money from flowing to people who view the western world as their enemy will be truly catastrophic.
– Frosty Woolridge, whose brother Howard is a former Michigan police officer and now the main lobbyist for LEAP in Washington DC working to end drug prohibition, posts some of Howard’s most compelling justifications for treating marijuana the same way we treat alcohol:
“Almost all of you reading this will have either been searched for marijuana or know someone who has. My profession has certainly changed its motto from ‘Protect and Serve’ to ‘Search and Arrest.’ A vehicle search will require two officers. Most officers operate alone, thus a colleague must be brought over from a neighboring district to assist. If a 911 call goes out in that district, the response time will be longer than necessary. Ditto for the district where the officer is searching the car. Reduction in Public Safety!
“The average search will require close to 60 minutes of total police time. So 750,000 possession cases equal only ¾ of a million hours, right? Wrong! According to my colleagues back in Bath Township, Michigan who spent most of their 12 hour shifts looking to bust the next Michael Phelps, they search an average of 15 cars to find one with a baggie. Now we are up to about 11 million hours or the equivalent of 5,500 street officers who do nothing but arrest the Willie Nelson’s of the world. Reduction in Public Safety!
…
Using a conservative figure of five hours per dealer bust, we are adding about 1.5 million more hours wasted. The hard number to calculate is how many hours are spent flying around in helicopters, locate an MJ garden and then spend a day cutting down the plants and airlifting them out….all without busting anyone. Now you have a clearer picture of the horrific amount of police time spent. Reduction in Public Safety!
“Wait! We are not done. These 845,000 MJ cases go to the lab that must show that the green stuff really is pot. Labs around the country are over-loaded with drug cases. Since drugs are the most important, guess what cases are not being processed? Rape kits & their DNA. According to National Public Radio and unrefuted, 400,000 rape kits some years old have never been opened. Rapists are running loose as labs process Willie’s last possession with intent to smoke bust. Reduction in Public Safety!
“Pop Quiz. According to our FBI, which crime receives more agent time: marijuana or child pornography? No brainer, right? And you are wrong! When FBI Director Mueller was asked by a not too happy Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz last year in a House hearing about the pitiful number of FBI agents (33 full-time equivalent) involved in kiddy porn crimes, his response was no new agents, no shifting of resources, nothing, nada, zip. IMO the expression on his face was ‘let them eat cake.’ Obviously he was never a street cop like me who has gently interviewed 7 year old rape victims and then arrested their tormentors. My blood is boiling as I write this, BTW. Reduction in Public Safety!
“Who else is unhappy with this criminal mis-direction of police resources? Some members of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. They will admit in private that the millions of street cop hours could be refocused & spent reducing deaths due to DUI by thousands. In public they are forced by funders to support MJ prohibition but in private they told me they support ending marijuana prohibition.
“The No Illegal Entry Into the USA groups are now opening their eyes to the fact that MJ prohibition means millions of extra border crossings. Why? Federal agents like ICE and Border Patrol have as their #1 priority federal (Title 21) drug laws. #2 is the catching of illegal entry. So, they literally will let 100 illegals coming thru without hindrance to stop one guy with a 60 pound backpack of grass. Experienced agents have informed me that absent the smuggling of pot with today’s manpower and technology, they could almost stop illegal entry across the southern border.
The emphasis two paragraphs above is mine. I’m very curious to know who’s actually running MADD and why they have such a strong stake in keeping marijuana illegal.
re MADD: their two biggest funders are the US government and the ultra prohibitionist Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Your title says Drug War Updates. Gil Kerlikowske says the phrase War on Drugs will no longer be used. Why are you still using it?
A large part of the reason why the DrugWar has been allowed to go on for so long has been the false belief that the money would always be available to run it. But even that was an illusion.
The economy of the 1980’s Reagan Build-up and the Clinton ‘go-go’ 1990’s were based upon deficit spending, upon bubbles,…which have collapsed. The fiscal realities are now closing in. The vast bureaucracy that has grown up – just as the 1972 Nixon Shafer Commission on MJ said it would – can no longer be supported.
Tough choices are looming, not on the horizon, but over our shoulders, right now. Money for the DrugWar…or money for unemployment. insurance? Which will it be? Ask the guy who’s just gotten a pink slip, is wondering how he’ll make a mortgage or rent payment, and who has a family to feed, house and care for that question, and the answer should be obvious. He’s going to be a lot more concerned about feeding and sheltering his kids than he will be about imaginary drug dealers chasing those same kids down the street with a syringe in one hand and a bag of cocaine in the other. That boogeyman has been played to death by drug prohibitionists, and it’s long past time it be properly buried.
Just as what happened with alcohol Prohibition, the binge spending is over, and the belt tightening must begin. No amount of whipping has been able to get this dead horse to run the Preakness. We’ve got better things to do with the money we have left than waste any more on buying more horse whips.
(start-sarcasm)
No…must keep drug illegal! Only Vodka and cigarettes are safe! Marijane is “evil”, just like gays, Jews, blacks and the Irish! I don’t wanna hear none of your fancy pants liberal “science”…I have an OPINION I pulled out of my ass, that plus my faith trumps your science, facts and logic!
(end-sarcasm)
@2
Troll, if you’re not sure if it’s still a war, feel free to spend a week down in Juarez, Mexico.
@1
Thanks!
As to whether the term ‘War on Drugs’ was ever applicable, it never was. It was and remains a war on people.
Worse, it is a war on certain people, mainly minorities. The earliest DrugWarriors were unabashed racists, and made no bones about who the intended targets of their legislative efforts were, namely Asian-, African- and Hispanic-Americans.
The racist origins of the drug laws of this country are a little-known historical fact. One that would incite widespread disgust (in a truly civilized society) should those origins become more widely known.
Given that the drug laws were based upon that same racial bigotry (and precious little else), were those origins to receive more exposure in the media, those who shill for the DrugWar would be hard-pressed to explain their continued support for it. For that support puts them in bed with those long-dead racist crackers…
Wasn’t it veep joe biden that authored and helped pass the “use crack go to jail, use cocaine and get a handslap” legislation? And wasn’t it his legislation that put tommy chong in jail?
Does that make him an unabashed racist?
Or the fact he had never met a smart/clean/articulate african-american before he met the obama. Which would explain why he wanted different penalties for blacks and whites.
Follow the Money.
Law Enforcement is funded by property seized and sold at auction.
MJ (vs. your average “tweecker”)users are targeted because they tend to be productive and actually have property to seize.
Until this stops don’t hold your breath that the “War on Drugs” is going to change any time soon.
Lee:
What age limit would you put on pot? 18? 21?
@10
I would start with 21 if it made it easier to get the regulatory system we need set up faster, but I don’t think there’s any risk in making it 18.
I’m interested in hearing a rational and fact based only counter argument to keeping the prohibition on MJ going.
I cannot answer as to whether Mr. Biden is a racist. But it’s not required for him to be one. Supporting something that was racist at its’ core, something that, true to it’s racist origins, is affecting African- and Hispanic-Americans in such a way that the numbers of minorities in prison is vastly out of proportion to their actual numbers within society, should be enough of a tell-tale that the process is working precisely as it was designed to. Those implementing it are allowed to point to it and proclaim they are supporting it for other reasons (Superhero echo chamber voice: “It’s to SAVE THE CHIL-DRENNNNNNNN!”) without ever being asked as to whether they know of those racist origins. So long as that condition maintains, so long as no one asks the critical questions, so shall the War on Drugs continue…at least until the money runs out.
Another, more political aspect of this is quite simply voter disenfranchisement. Be convicted of a felony attributed to drug law infractions, and in most States you lose your ability to vote forever. Comes in handy when you can’t trust electronic voting machine tabulations, and sheer numbers are needed.
It’s especially handy when one party is known for its’ paucity of minority members and the other is heavily dependent upon minority membership and participation. Which is in no small part of the reason why our elections have been so hotly contested in this decade. Any wonder why the former party is especially interested in ratcheting up the penalties for drug laws, and creating even newer such laws?
(The party dependent upon minority participation doesn’t help its’ own cause by attempting to appear even ‘tougher on drugs!’ than the former party. In doing so, they take pistols from the hands of their opponents and obliging shoot their own feet with them. A point which seems lost upon them, as they limp around bleeding and feign ignorance as to why they have blood-streaming holes in their feet. Their seeming willful ignorance is worthy only of contempt.)
Drug Prohibition can be proven historically through the recorded writings of its’ greatest proponents that in origin and practice that it is racist. As the old saying goes, the ‘fruit does not fall far from the tree’. The fruit from this particular tree has been poisoning this country for far too many years; the tree needs to be uprooted, not pruned.
@12
1. MJ is pretty harmless .. certainly no worse than coffee, chocolate, or even extreme exercise.
One good? outcome of the fanatic antiMJ movement is that lots of effort has been undertaken to orove the stuff is harmful. None of this has found much of anythung to worry about. There is a lot more to be concerned about with chocolate than with MJ!
2. MJ sales now ARE dangerous BECAUSE they are illegal
A lot of the bad things one hears about MJ, eg its association with the drug culture, arise because of the culture surrounding the stuff. If it were legal but regulated by the FDA, I suspect we would still have a problem with home brewed stuff (as we do with moon shine and tax free tobacco) but most of criominality should go away.
3. MJ probably should NOT be taken as a joint. One unfortunate side of the current culture is that there are certainly better and safer ways to experience THC than by inhaling carcinogenic smoke. I can imagine, for example, a vartiant on the new electronic cigs that would deliver safe THC instead of nicotine.
4. MJ is probably beneficial While the pro-pot fanatics way overstate the need for MJ as a “medicine,”{ the stuff is active in ways that would be useful for manyt people .. whether that means acting as a mild relaxant, controlling nausea, or helping folks who are anorexic.
5. It would be good for Science. One reason I oppose “medical marijuana,” is that the extreme level of irrational hype associated with that aspect of the drug is not very different in its fanatacism than the weed-is-evil crowd. Legalizing marijuana so that folks who find it helpful to them are as free to use it as they are to use aspirin would make the point that our laws should be based on rationality rather than mythology.
@12 GBS
1. MJ is pretty harmless .. certainly no worse than coffee, chocolate, or even extreme exercise.
One good? outcome of the fanatic antiMJ movement is that lots of effort has been undertaken to orove the stuff is harmful. None of this has found much of anythung to worry about. There is a lot more to be concerned about with chocolate than with MJ!
2. MJ sales now ARE dangerous BECAUSE they are illegal
A lot of the bad things one hears about MJ, eg its association with the drug culture, arise because of the culture surrounding the stuff. If it were legal but regulated by the FDA, I suspect we would still have a problem with home brewed stuff (as we do with moon shine and tax free tobacco) but most of criominality should go away.
3. MJ probably should NOT be taken as a joint. One unfortunate side of the current culture is that there are certainly better and safer ways to experience THC than by inhaling carcinogenic smoke. I can imagine, for example, a vartiant on the new electronic cigs that would deliver safe THC instead of nicotine.
4. MJ is probably beneficial While the pro-pot fanatics way overstate the need for MJ as a “medicine,”{ the stuff is active in ways that would be useful for manyt people .. whether that means acting as a mild relaxant, controlling nausea, or helping folks who are anorexic.
5. It would be good for Science. One reason I oppose “medical marijuana,” is that the extreme level of irrational hype associated with that aspect of the drug is not very different in its fanatacism than the weed-is-evil crowd. Legalizing marijuana so that folks who find it helpful to them are as free to use it as they are to use aspirin would make the point that our laws should be based on rationality rather than mythology.
OOPS
Not sure how this got posted twice … feel free to delete the first one.
14/15:
I dunno about MJ and chocolate. It seems to me that one leads to the other….
GATEWAY DRUG!!! BOO!!!
I think we should legalize pot. What would the underground drug crowd do for a living then?
Sorry Seattle Jew, I didn’t phrase my question very well. Let me try again.
I’m for legalizing MJ.
What I’m interested in hearing is the rationale from the other side of the debate for continuing the criminalization of MJ.
I agree with you, chocolate goes with everything. Especially, a good, heavy red wine.
Twinkies, however, go great with MJ.
Lee – I will be at the next CDC meeting. Hope all goes well…..
Seattle Jew – please go fuck yourself at your earliest convenience.
Born a black sheep.
Raised by Eisenhower Republicans.
@20 you must be taking lesons from Lee. I believe he knows how to fuck himslef but ..sorry .. I have never figured out how to do that,
@19 GBS
Aha!
I wondered about your intent.
Therr really are not many good arguements againsts legalization. The ebst I have heard are:
1. We Will Loose the Trust of the People This is based on the dea that having lied about MJ for so long, the government is in bad place now. How does it admit it created a false issue and still get folks to believe that tobacco is bad?
2. Reefers Cause Cancer This is a more serious arguement/ SMOKED marijuana is likely to be carcinogenic because it actually contains more of the bad tars than does tobacco smoke. The situation now is bizarre. Potheads, like Lee, behave like the ciogarete companies of yore. They push the idea that we dom not have evidence that smoking pot causes cancer. They are correct, however we do know the biochemistry of why tobacco causes cancer so it is VERY likely that MJ does the same thing.
3. MJ Makes Poor Drivers this is one of the few claims for which their is real data. At least long term smokers seem to have impaired reflexes. The problem is that the effect is small, almost certainly less than the effects of many other things we condone. For example, it is also possible that many forms of exercise impair the ability to drive either because they raise endorphin (morphine like) levels or adrenergic (speed-like) levels.
That is the extent of what I have seen as hard data. Other claims, eg that effects the number of neurons or effects your immune system are pretty trivial. Is weight gain worth outlawing pot AND chocolate?
FYI
Marijuana Spray is OK, Incoming CDC Chief Says
This is exactly the sort of thing that may complicate the pothead’s cause. Many hosoitals, eg, now outlaw smoking MJ because of the cancer risk but, presumably, would be very open to this choice. Also, a prescription of this sort would likely apply to a lot of off label uses. The results might well be to send the potheads out to the woods to join the moonshiners while federally licensed and taxed THC sells for $1 a toke or some such.
My guess this is mainly a political move. MADD is more effective if it includes those who think pot is as bad as booze then if it undergoes a schism.
Please don’t consider my remarks as commenting on marijuana legalization, I think that is a different issue. In response to Lee’s original five reasons for legalization for all drugs:
1. Reducing law enforcement/incarceration expenses. I agree that criminal justice costs would be reduced with legalization. But, I don’t think the savings from legalization are a drop in the bucket in this huge economic crisis. Are you specifying marijuana enforcement here or all drugs?
2. Improving the situation in Mexico. The Mexican government, just as the Colombian government in the 70’s, did not have the political will to deal with the corruption which enables these cartels to operate. This seems to be changing and a semblence of order will be restored, the question is when and at what cost?
3. Keeping drugs out the hands of children. This is a really weak argument as demonstrated by the failure of our highly regulated prescription medication system’s failure to keep prescription drugs from being abused by children and adults.
4. Improving public health. In my experience(in NY), anyone who is arrested and claims drug dependence, especially on a straight possession charge, is offered treatment as part of their sentence. The real scandal is the state of the treatment industry which is largely ineffective and seems to churn “patients” through in a manner similar the criminal “justice” system, all at great profit for a few.
5. Setting an example for how other countries can help reduce global organized crime and terrorism. As for saving the world from radical Islam by legalizing drugs; Europe has some of the most “progressive” drug policies in the world, yet it is the European heroin market that consumes the vast majority of heroin produced in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They would have to start producing their own heroin in Europe to cut down on the indirect support for terrorist groups in these areas.
Thanks,
Think for yourself
Seattle Jew wrote:
‘Cancer risk’? What cancer risk? It may interest readers to know that the latest attempt in trying to find a link between lung cancer and cannabis not only failed, but discovered that the compounds in cannabis actually reduced the risk of cancer. And, as usual, the study was funded by ther Gub’mint.
not only that, but very recently the head of that study, Dr. Tashkin, came out in favor of cannabis re-legalization.
And, when you consider that as far back as 1974 when it was discovered that THC has anti-neoplastic properties (it kills cancer cells without damaging surrounding tissues) this ‘cannabis causes cancer’ meme should have been buried long ago.
More propaganda. More lies in the taxpayer’s faces. More excuses to maintain a policy comprised of racism and little else.
Sam Adams at 9 said:
“MJ (vs. your average “tweecker”)users are targeted because they tend to be productive and actually have property to seize.”
Excellent point, Sam! The war on drugs people are no different from any other government agency seeking funds. Seizing property helps fund salaries, pensions, and health care for the DEA and others.
It’s time to come to a realization that marijuana is not going away. Let us finally legalize and regulate this substance for adults who choose to use it. This is none of the government’s business.
@26 MJ and Cancer
The risk from carcinogens present in marijuana smoke is very real.
There are two different issues here.
1, If we take smoke from a reefer, the molecules known to cause cancer in cigarette smoke are present. If we take that same smoke and collected it on a filter, put the filter on your skin I would expect to see a cancerous response .
2. The other issue is whether smoking the same refer has been shown to cause cancer. The answer is no but that was once true for tobacco as well and was the argument made by the tobacco companies.
The problem with such studies is illustrated by the defenses of the tobacco industry. A well done study in Puerto Rico failed to find the expected risk from smoking. That data led to suggestions that all the other studies were flawed by some variable OTHER THAN TOBACCO.
Given the knowledge we have of the content of tobacco smoke, combined now with enough studies to be definitive, I doubt any scientist thinks inhaling tobacco smoke is safe. So, while it is certainly possible, bvased on ther stdy you cite, that MJ smoke ahs some miracle ingredient that counteracts the carcinogens, it is far more likely that large studies would show a risk similar to that of tobacco. Brownies, inhaled THC itself, .. are all probably fine.
What about the claim that marijuana blocks cancer I think the studies you refer to were of THC, the actgive ingredient in MJ. THC is NOT MJ. The problem with reefers is not THC, it is the contaminating hydrocarbons. The same, sadly, is true of tobacco. Nicotine and tobacco flavors are not carcinogenic. As for the anti cancer effect, cell culture assays are not very good at defining anti tumor effects.
When MJ is legalized, it is likely that it will be restricted in the same ways we restrict tobacco.
@ 26 thinkforyourself
Great post! Good arguments.
The only ploace I disagree is with the importance of prescriptions in regard to kids. While we certainly do have a problem, I am sure that would eb far worse if we did not have the prescription system.
Be great to meet yiu some time. Do you come to DL?
@25
Thanks for the comments. My parents are visiting from the East coast right now, but I will reply to those points in full when I have some free time.
@30:
Wow, your folks must be proud! A stoner kid obsessed with legalizing drugs and a shitty role model of a new Dad. Tell me Lee, are you going to smoke out with your folks if you’re so for legalizing pot? Thought not. Douche bag. Someday you’ll have to grow up.
Seattle Jew:
So what’re the health risks of using MJ if you use a vaporizer vs. other methods of ingesting THC?
@32 ,,,
My guess would be that there are no significant risks for THC however you take it. (other than inducing obsessive eating!)
MJ may be a different issue, especially in the current environment where there is no oversight. The issue her eis not so much marijuana as the risks associated with any product outside of our public health system.
Smoking lettuce is at least a little safer because the effin stuff is legal and therefore there is at least some effort to watch what is happening.
Did you ever hear the story about peanut butter? The organic, super fine stuff in the health food stores? It tutnes out that there is an organism that often grows on the stuff and produ ces one of the worst known carcinogens!
It seems to me that the best way of dealing with Mj is to legalize it if only because I would rather buy my MJ at QFC thqan from Lee.
@25
Again, thanks for the comments. I’d like to address each of your points
1. I never said that the savings from ending drug prohibition (and yes, I mean no longer taking a law enforcement approach to even harder drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth, but a public health approach) would be a drop in the bucket. I’m just saying that there are other problems in this country (like our overall health care system) that need to be fixed in order for our overall economy to be fixed.
2. I disagree that the current Mexican government did not have the political will to take on the cartels. Calderon was elected in an election where the drug cartels were a major issue. What happened was that an industry that takes in the level of income that the drug organizations do cannot be defeated, or even controlled. I don’t see any signs that any semblance of order being restored there is a sign of a reduction in the size of the drug trafficking organizations. It’s a sign that the Calderon government now realizes the limitations of what it can do.
3. There’s a very big difference between prescription medications that adults leave in places where their children can find them, and drugs that adults will tend not to have lying around. Even in a legalized system, I don’t anticipate too many adults to have powder cocaine or heroin in their medicine cabinet (not that OxyContin is all that safer). But that’s also missing the larger point I was making, in that young people won’t become pawns in the trade.
4. That’s true, but most of the country is not as progressive on that front as NY and Seattle. And we’re far from as progressive as Europe and Canada. And the comparison of statistics of drug-related health issues shows that we can get better.
5. Not all of the Europe is smart about how to deal with heroin yet, especially Eastern Europe. Not to mention that much more of the heroin being produced in Afghanistan in being consumed in places like China, Russia, and Iran. As for producing their own heroin, some European countries already do this, and some good news just came out this week – Germany is allowing prescription heroin programs. That’s the kind of stuff that will greatly reduce the amount of money being made by the Taliban.
Thanks again for the comments. Have a great weekend!
@31
You have no idea how proud my parents are. They absolutely love their new grandson. I’m sorry that you didn’t grow up in a good family like I did. I can’t do anything about that, but if you think that being a moron on the internet will help you get over that pain, then by all means, keep attacking me.
@19
GBS,
Your question was crystal clear. You have to keep in mind that SJ is not interacting with the people in this comment thread, he’s interacting with imaginary caricatures of us that he creates in order to reassure himself that he’s the smartest and most interesting person on Earth.
Is there something I wrote you disagree with?
Lee,
1. I’m the one saying that law enforcement savings from legalization would be a drop in the bucket compared to the debts we’ve racked up the last few years. It sounded like the financial crisis was being used as an argument for legalization. If this financial situation (bailouts, etc.) has revealled anything, it is that this country has the money to provide true rehab and harm reduction services at the same time as funding law enforcement.
2. I agree that Calderon is the first to have the nerve to go after the Mexican cartels. He’s got real cajones and I hope he lives to a ripe old age. It is also important to note that domestic drug abuse is becoming a bigger problem in Mexico. This will lead to stronger political will to adress the issue.
The fact is that the Mexican cartels became more powerful when they started taking over U.S. distribution of Colombian cocaine and heroin from Colombian cartels. This was an effort of the Colombian cartels to limit their exposure to prosecution, which was a direct result of law enforcement. I think this proves that law enforcement can have an effect on these groups. Also the price of cocaine has been elevated for a long time now, a trend which coincides with increased enforcement in Mexico. I’m not saying that this is any kind of “turning point” but it does show that enforcing laws can have an effect.
Social order will be restored in Mexico, just as it was in Colombia when the people got sick of car bombs and kidnappings. Calderon’s election, as slim a victory as it was, shows this is coming.
3. I’m not talking about kids swiping pills from the medicine cabinet. I’m talking about wholesale distribution of illegally obtained Oxycontin, Percocet, Valium, Xanax etc. There are thousands of pharmacists and hopefully fewer doctors involved in this black market, writing and filling obviously bogus or unnecessary prescriptions for profit, and then there are the counterfeit pills being produced by the millions specifically for sale to addicted people. Why does anyone think that the government would have any more success regulating a legal heroin market, it defies logic.
4. Yes, rehab can work, but the current state of this industry is as corrupt as any government agency people like to rail against. Methadone is not effective in getting addicts off heroin, it just prolongs a miserable existence. Hospitals and clinics have been getting rich from methadone treatment for years and have not had any effect on the overall consumption of heroin in this country. Look up “long acting methadone” and try to figure out why it is not widely used. Maybe because it reduces an addicts visits to his “clinic” which is how the clinic bills for their services? I really hope that someone with real knowledge of the drug treatment industry can straighten me out on this issue, because in my experience most programs are not much more than money making schemes with limited benefit.
5. Have Switzerland, Portugal and Canada reduced their consumption of heroin? I hope that can be shown, I haven’t seen it yet. There’s a big difference between treating addicts humanely, which I think is becoming more common in America, and reducing consumption. Until we see reduction in European heroin use it’s tough to use defeating the Taliban as an argument for legalization. I think we might do better passively fighting the Taliban by buying a Prius and reducing Saudi Arabia’s support. But, that is a whole different blog. Anyway, our cocaine/heroin addiction funding cartels, FARC, etc. is no better, it’s just that we are not the direct victims of their violence.
Lee, I think that as an enlightened society we have an obligation to protect a vulnerable class like addicts. Why can’t we work on reforming the treatment industry and offering real rehabilitation to addicts in conjunction with keeping drugs illegal. If we reduce consumption, we’ll reduce profit and along with the threat of going to jail, make the idea of supplying drugs to addicts that much less attractive.
Thanks
Think for yourself
BTW- I’ve only read a few of SJ’s comments, but they seem pretty reasoned, why the slap? Plus, he complimented me! (ha ha)
Ladies and Gentlemen, while some have exhibited hatred for others (standard on HA) here is a great link with many cross references… Puddy highlights one…
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung’s small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana. – Emphasis by Puddy.
And here is another link .
@39 Myth vs Science
Quite similar studies were used by the Tobacco Lobby to claim that cigarette smoking was harmless. Some studies, like this one, failed to find that tobacco smoke caused cancer. NOT finding something is not proof.
The same sort of issue arises in my field. In one famous study, lowering cholesterol seemed t CAUSE suicide and had at most a minimal effect on atherosclerosis! When we learned better ways to look at vessels and analyzed many studies together, the evidence against cholesterol became overwhelming.
Unfortunately population studies are a lot more difficult to perform than studies in the lab. Given all that we know about carcinogens (carcinogens are NOT simply irritants), the chances that reefers does not cause cancer are slim. If there is some sort of wonderful anticacer agent in reefer smoke, that would be great new.
Until we show that, don’t smoke.
@38
I’m the one saying that law enforcement savings from legalization would be a drop in the bucket compared to the debts we’ve racked up the last few years.
Ok, then this part from comment #25 must be a typo then:
No worries, I guess we agree on that point. :)
It sounded like the financial crisis was being used as an argument for legalization. If this financial situation (bailouts, etc.) has revealled anything, it is that this country has the money to provide true rehab and harm reduction services at the same time as funding law enforcement.
I agree on your latter point, but that does not factor in the costs of prisons, criminal justice and court costs, lab costs, etc, etc. I still believe that we cannot solve our economic problems without reforming this overall “war”.
2. I agree that Calderon is the first to have the nerve to go after the Mexican cartels. He’s got real cajones and I hope he lives to a ripe old age. It is also important to note that domestic drug abuse is becoming a bigger problem in Mexico. This will lead to stronger political will to adress the issue.
Perhaps, but it’s also important to note that Mexico is pushing for laws similar to Portugal, where all low-level drug possession was decriminalized earlier this decade.
The fact is that the Mexican cartels became more powerful when they started taking over U.S. distribution of Colombian cocaine and heroin from Colombian cartels. This was an effort of the Colombian cartels to limit their exposure to prosecution, which was a direct result of law enforcement. I think this proves that law enforcement can have an effect on these groups.
True, and there are several reasons why that was able to happen. For one, it’s harder for farmers to make such large sums of money as traffickers, and Colombians are at the very beginning of the supply chain. Two, Colombia welcomed America military personnel into the fight (the Mexican public likely wouldn’t stomach that). Three (and this is related to the second point), the groups like FARC who took part in the drug trade, were already deeply unpopular in the eyes of most Colombians and made it easier to paint it as a war on “terrorists”.
It’s theoretically possible for us to remove the cartels from Mexico, but it would take about 10-20 times the amount of money, it would require American military intervention, and all that would happen is that the trade would move to the Caribbean and we start all over again. Why?
Also the price of cocaine has been elevated for a long time now, a trend which coincides with increased enforcement in Mexico.
And it will come back down again, as it always does. In fact, the price of cocaine has been in an overall decline (as opposed to almost all other commodities on the planet) over the past 20 years.
Mexico. I’m not saying that this is any kind of “turning point” but it does show that enforcing laws can have an effect.
It’s a temporary effect. We’re not solving anything long term.
Social order will be restored in Mexico, just as it was in Colombia when the people got sick of car bombs and kidnappings. Calderon’s election, as slim a victory as it was, shows this is coming.
I’m not so sure. You have to keep in mind, much of the cocaine is still being produced in Colombia. The only thing that’s changed is that the organizations that move that cocaine to the United States have just moved from being Colombian-based to Mexican-based. We’re not “defeating” anything. We’re just re-organizing the industry. And I don’t think we even have a fraction of the resources right now to remove the cartel leadership from that region.
3. I’m not talking about kids swiping pills from the medicine cabinet. I’m talking about wholesale distribution of illegally obtained Oxycontin, Percocet, Valium, Xanax etc. There are thousands of pharmacists and hopefully fewer doctors involved in this black market, writing and filling obviously bogus or unnecessary prescriptions for profit, and then there are the counterfeit pills being produced by the millions specifically for sale to addicted people. Why does anyone think that the government would have any more success regulating a legal heroin market, it defies logic.
Good point.
What I think would eliminate this market is to allow for individuals to bypass the need for a prescription in order to obtain prescription medications (and sign up for a registry of such use), and for addicts to be able to register as addicts to obtain the drugs they’re addicted to for free.
Addicts drive that market and are the wealthier ones are willing to pay big bucks (see: Limbaugh, Rush). If they are either given a legal avenue to obtain the drugs, you again eliminate the black market (and protect children).
4. Yes, rehab can work, but the current state of this industry is as corrupt as any government agency people like to rail against.
I agree, but that’s not an excuse to eliminate it, it’s a reason to improve it. Underfunded and neglected government programs do have a tendency to become corrupt. The more we understand the importance of something and expect it to work, the harder it is for it to end up in that state.
Methadone is not effective in getting addicts off heroin, it just prolongs a miserable existence. Hospitals and clinics have been getting rich from methadone treatment for years and have not had any effect on the overall consumption of heroin in this country.
Whether or not methadone is effective (I’ve heard both sides of that argument and I can’t say what’s really true), the overall consumption of heroin stays up for other reasons. In fact, the overall consumption of heroin only started to skyrocket after it was made illegal.
5. Have Switzerland, Portugal and Canada reduced their consumption of heroin?
Switzerland has significantly, Portugal has seen some decrease, but I don’t think Canada has seen a reduction yet. The major difference between those three is what I mentioned above – prescription heroin programs. It sounds counter-intuitive, but by prescribing heroin to addicts, you remove the black market, you get addicts into a public health setting where they’re more likely to switch to a treatment problem, and you reduce the numbers of new users. The city of Zurich cut its numbers of new users by 90% over 10 years by doing this. Canada doesn’t do this yet (and I don’t think Portugal does either, but I’m not 100% sure), but Canada is planning a pilot program for Montreal and Vancouver.
There’s a big difference between treating addicts humanely, which I think is becoming more common in America, and reducing consumption.
I think they go hand-in-hand. I think that when you treat addicts more humanely, they start to look like pathetic sick people rather than rebellious outlaws, and you take away some of the glamour factor of drug use.
Until we see reduction in European heroin use it’s tough to use defeating the Taliban as an argument for legalization. I think we might do better passively fighting the Taliban by buying a Prius and reducing Saudi Arabia’s support.
I agree that it’s a tough argument to make, but it’s an argument with a tangible basis. And yes, you can’t underestimate the importance of reducing the dependence on oil as part of how to defeat terrorism. A combination of strategies are required to reduce the dangers that exist in the Middle East today.
But, that is a whole different blog. Anyway, our cocaine/heroin addiction funding cartels, FARC, etc. is no better, it’s just that we are not the direct victims of their violence.
Exactly. Most Americans haven’t been effected by these policies as of yet. Well, maybe I should say most white Americans. And that’s why it still remains a politically difficult subject.
Lee, I think that as an enlightened society we have an obligation to protect a vulnerable class like addicts. Why can’t we work on reforming the treatment industry and offering real rehabilitation to addicts in conjunction with keeping drugs illegal.
I think we can do that, but I don’t think it will be as effective from a public health standpoint as if we decriminalize (or medicalize) those addictive drugs. Leaving criminals in charge of the distribution of those drugs introduces risks that don’t need to be there – and are not there when a society accepts that the act of taking a drug is not criminal behavior. Once you get to that rational conclusion, you can achieve a system that reduces the amount of people becoming addicted, primarily by reducing the likelihood of trying a dangerous drug for the first time. That can best be done by controlling the distribution (as the Swiss found out with heroin). Leaving the drugs illegal generally leads to greater numbers of new users.
BTW- I’ve only read a few of SJ’s comments, but they seem pretty reasoned, why the slap? Plus, he complimented me! (ha ha)
He complimented you because you’re challenging my views (which I appreciate and welcome). He has a very long history of challenging my views, and then when I respond back, he resorts to lying about what I’m actually saying. It’s a pattern that has continued for over three years now.
I thoroughly enjoy having an intelligent back-and-forth with well-informed and thoughtful people like yourself, which is why it’s so frustrating to have to deal with someone like SJ who desperately wants to believe he can, but just isn’t able to.
@38 in re @41
FWIW,
I think most what lwee says in this post is rational.
I am curious how the prescription program works in Switzerland. How would we control who is and is not an addict? To be a registered addict would one need a diagnosis? would an addict have to agree to therapy and for testing to prove she or he was NOT using illegal stuff?
Does such a program require socialized med? Does the State pay for the drugs?
@38 thinkforyourself
FWIW, Lee has become very abusive toward me, making a number of threats and using rather extreme language.
Maybe he has some sort of allergy to pot? .
Seriously, Obama has brought an amzing new level of rationality to our public discourse. I doubt that MJ is terribly high on his “must do” list but this may be the beginning of a rational period in US government.
What worries me is that fanatics could poison our chances of having rational discourse about MJ. Lee, for example, far overstates the rather limited medicinal value of marijuana.
In a way it is funny. Rather than encouraging solid (if less dramatic) support Lee writes about medical marijuana as if it were a major, life saving drug. Not only that, he promotes the use of reefers when, at least as a drug, THC is as effective, safer, and available by prescription with no issues of police harassment.
@43
FWIW, Lee has become very abusive toward me, making a number of threats and using rather extreme language.
When I called your employer to complain about your behavior (using computers at your public sector job to lie about me and others on your blog) it was they who suggested I call the police. I think that’s all that needs to be said.
Lee, for example, far overstates the rather limited medicinal value of marijuana.
I’m posting this at Effin’ Unsound. If you can back this up with any evidence, I’ll stop calling you a liar. Until then, you’re still a liar.
So it was you!
I assumed it was. FWIW, SJ is hosted on my private account by Ready Hosting and, looking at it .. or HA or Granma or the WSJ .. these agree all within the state law under what is called de minimus.”
I was not aware you actually calledf the police. That is fascinating … I did get a call from the SPS to express their worry about someone who was threatening me. Was that you?
@45
That is fascinating … I did get a call from the SPS to express their worry about someone who was threatening me. Was that you?
No, and you already asked me that a long time ago. I’ve never threatened you, but the University of Washington asked that I call SPD to file a harassment report after I explained what you’d been doing.
Good luck with the lying douchebag watch. Your first comment at EffU has already been deleted since it did not contain any evidence to back up your lies.
@45
Oh, and you’re more than willing to solicit help from others in finding evidence that backs up either of your statements.
Good luck!
Lee,
1. Sorry about the typo. I still think this financial crisis has revealled how little the government really cares about drug addiction. I never knew how much money there was to go around. If this problem were taken seriously, rehab would be on demand and be effective, and there would be much more effective enforcement of drug laws. Sometimes it makes you think addiction, treatment and the drug war are part of someone’s big plan. I’ll take off my tin foil hat now.
2. When you say Mexico is pushing for laws like Portugal, I wonder what percentage of the population is behind it. Has there been a referendum?
I don’t understand the point about farmers and drug dealers.
I am pretty sure we will have military advisors in Mexico if they’re not there already “training the Mexican military to use the equipment” we’re giving them. I’m not sure the public will be very upset.
I’m am very sure that the Mexican cartels are no more popular with the common Mexican than FARC is/was with the common Colombian, and if you don’t label Mexican cartels’ behavior terrorism, what would you call it?
So the traffickers move to the Caribbean again, it never completely left there and will be fought there again. Cops don’t stop chasing robbers because they come up with different methods.
The price of a kilo of cocaine in N.Y. used to be about 21K-25K depending on how much was bought. Since Calderon started making an effort in Mexico it has gone up to the mid 30’s and higher. This has been for nearly two years now, that has not happened before. When does it count as a success? It would be nice if there were real demand reduction efforts to coincide with this success.
Yes, we are reorganizing the market’s structure. That’s right. Do you think the Colombian cartels wanted to give the Mexican cartels money to transport and distribute? No, they lose money by doing that. I’m not saying victory is near, but the more middle men have to get a piece of the action, the less profit there is to go around. The less profit there is in a market, the less attractive it is.
We have plenty of resources to remove the Mexican cartels, we just not focused on it, and the Mexican people are too proud and/or afraid to ask for help.
3. “What I think would eliminate this market is to allow for individuals to bypass the need for a prescription in order to obtain prescription medications (and sign up for a registry of such use), and for addicts to be able to register as addicts to obtain the drugs they’re addicted to for free.”
I’m not sure if this is a libertarian live and let die argument or a real system with flaws that are obvious only to a reformed delinquent like myself.
So you would register users of addictive pills and let them buy at a retail store? Would there be an age limit? If so what’s to stop the same guy that bought me beer when I was 14 from buying my daughter a few Xanax or Oxys? What about the market of people who can’t or don’t want to sign up in the registry? Then when these social users deem themselves addicts, we give them the stuff for free? Talk about cradle to the grave. Then what does a guy who gets something for free and probably isn’t working because he’s too debilitated from his addiction do for money? I guess we give it to him. If not he’s going to sell his free “medication” for less than the corner store is and just get more free stuff. Please tell me I have it wrong.
“Addicts drive that market and are the wealthier ones are willing to pay big bucks (see: Limbaugh, Rush). If they are either given a legal avenue to obtain the drugs, you again eliminate the black market (and protect children).”
The wealthier ones pay the big bucks for anonymity, I don’t think they would register as “users” or addicts. Plus, I hereby restate my above counter-arguments about the inevitability of a black market. There’s a black market for cigarettes, guns and perfume for Pete’s sake! BTW Lee, Limbaugh’s chubby little fingers are dialing his lawyer right now.
4. I though we had achieved the nirvana of total agreement on this one, but then I read to the end of your point. I think the increased use of heroin after it became illegal says more about increased international trade and exposure to the drug than the alleged sexiness of making a substance illegal. This is a historical argument that I’m not sure is relevant, we can’t put that genie back in the bottle.
5. I respectfully request that you point me in the direction of some reading on the Portugal, Switzerland, Canada systems, but nothing that will change my mind.(ha,ha)
“I think they go hand-in-hand. I think that when you treat addicts more humanely, they start to look like pathetic sick people rather than rebellious outlaws, and you take away some of the glamour factor of drug use.”
I’ve never known a heroin addict who appeared to be or was referred to as a rebellious outlaw. It believe it is also common knowledge that first-hand observation of the pathetic hopelessness of addiction has deterred younger siblings from ever touching drugs. The only aspect of the drug ecosystem with a glamour factor is sale of drugs.
“Most Americans haven’t been effected by these policies as of yet. Well, maybe I should say most white Americans. And that’s why it still remains a politically difficult subject.”
I agree that the results of drug enforcement as judged by imprisoned criminals affects black and hispanic people more. I believe this is because of the tendency to sell drugs in public areas in predominantly black and hispanic communities. This leads to more complaints from black and hispanic neighbors and more violence with black and hispanic victims. Complaints and violence will always bring a reaction from the local police commander trying to keep his scalp in place.
“…when a society accepts that the act of taking a drug is not criminal behavior. Once you get to that rational conclusion, you can achieve a system that reduces the amount of people becoming addicted,…”
Lee, I hope my edit has not done your comment a disservice, but you’re almost as verbose as I. I’m not sure this is a rational conclusion. I see the act of (possessing) taking drugs as illegal because it damages a person to the point that they become a liability to society and a danger to their families/children. I believe we can do a better job helping these people, but not by legalizing a process that ruins people.
In regard to Switzerland, I volunteer to go there and try to find a black market for heroin, if you will finance the trip. (You’re the big shot with the fancy blog.) I’m pretty sure I’d be successful, but I still want to read about their efforts, if you’ll give me a link or two.
InRe: S.J. I feel very strongly about this issue because of some personal experience as you guys may also, but you’re both obviously smart people who seem to have gotten under each other’s skin. We’re just talking here, and it seems like we all want the same result but have different ideas of how to get there. Please don’t get the government involved in this discourse and start costing each other real pesos.
Lee and SJ,
I just looked a little further at this site and apologize for underestimating scope of your animosity. Please disregard the (sic)kumbaya approach I formerly advocated. Have at it.
Thinkforyourself
PS- I still don’t think you should get the cops involved.
Thinkforyourself
TH4Y
Honestly, Lee is not under my skin at all although I do worry about that his efforts to hurt me personally could get the cops or even the lawyers involved. Challenging ana academic on intellectual ability may qualify as slander. Th line between what he has threatened to do and real violence worries me too.
For my part, I am utterly serious when I say I respect him for his knowledge and interest in the drug war. If you look through the threads the name calling etc. is (AFIK) all one sided.
********************
On a more useful issue …
I VERY much like your c point about the danger of moving the drig war from Mexico to Haiti (eg) is very important. It seems to me that NO solutions can be had that does not include reform here.
A civil discourse proabably should start with who is “doable.” It seems to me that legalizing THC sales is a good first step because it would signal Obama’s commitment to making scientific rather than faith based decsions.
So, here would be my first step. BHO should ask the NIH and the National Academy to review MJ just as the famous Surgeon General’s Report reviewed tobacco.
The certain result of this would be to delegitimize the pot hater industry and leave no real obstacle to regulated sales. Brownies, sprays, even over the counter THC would be legal and perhaps need no more regulation than we do now for coffee.
Unfortunately, I think the pot fanatic community would not accept such an approach because the Report would almost certainly recommend against encouraging pot smoking.
Thoughts?
I would add to your comments on this extremist view. I think we already say the likely result in the misuse of guns, even when they are registered. If you deregulate drugs, they will ne massivley misused. Imagine the adds for testerone for guys who want to build muscle!
@48
2. When you say Mexico is pushing for laws like Portugal, I wonder what percentage of the population is behind it. Has there been a referendum?
I’m not sure what kind of polling exists on it, but the Mexican Congress has been trying since 2006 to pass it.
I don’t understand the point about farmers and drug dealers.
The point is that you can make more money quickly and with less risk by moving product across a border near the destination than by being at the end where the farming occurs. Those furthest upstream of the drug pipeline tend to make less money and have more risk.
I am pretty sure we will have military advisors in Mexico if they’re not there already “training the Mexican military to use the equipment” we’re giving them. I’m not sure the public will be very upset.
It’s been a harder sell than you may realize, but attitudes in Mexico could certainly change.
I’m not sure if this is a libertarian live and let die argument or a real system with flaws that are obvious only to a reformed delinquent like myself.
The point of doing this is to take away to outlaw nature of drug use. It works for the same reason that the Swiss heroin prescription program has worked. More here. I can dig up a few more links if you’d like.
Simply put, prohibitions don’t work. They don’t work for any drug for which there’s real demand. Until I see data that shows otherwise, there’s simply no reason to believe that a system of prohibition will effectively reduce the problems of drug abuse better than a regulated system that allows people to obtain recreational use drugs.
I though we had achieved the nirvana of total agreement on this one, but then I read to the end of your point. I think the increased use of heroin after it became illegal says more about increased international trade and exposure to the drug than the alleged sexiness of making a substance illegal.
That’s very easy to disprove. You can compare the heroin use rates between the United States between 1914 and 1955 (where it was illegal) and Britain (where it remained legal and prescribed by doctors). In the United States, heroin use exploded, but it did not in Britain until after WWII (when they then made it illegal). Feel free to send me an email if you want the numbers for that. I believe it was in a book I read last year (and not online), so I’ll have to do some digging.
I’ve never known a heroin addict who appeared to be or was referred to as a rebellious outlaw. It believe it is also common knowledge that first-hand observation of the pathetic hopelessness of addiction has deterred younger siblings from ever touching drugs. The only aspect of the drug ecosystem with a glamour factor is sale of drugs.
I disagree with this. Have you not heard the term “heroin chic”? I had a very stable upbringing, so I wasn’t succeptible to these types of stereotypes, but others clearly are. A lot of people start using heroin to fit in to a group. That doesn’t happen as much when the addicts get their fixes in a clinic rather than on the street.
Lee, I hope my edit has not done your comment a disservice, but you’re almost as verbose as I.
Not at all. I appreciate it.
I’m not sure this is a rational conclusion. I see the act of (possessing) taking drugs as illegal because it damages a person to the point that they become a liability to society and a danger to their families/children.
And I would argue that putting a drug user in jail does far more damage to themself and their family.
In regard to Switzerland, I volunteer to go there and try to find a black market for heroin, if you will finance the trip. (You’re the big shot with the fancy blog.)
Oh, I don’t get paid for this. :)
I just looked a little further at this site and apologize for underestimating scope of your animosity. Please disregard the (sic)kumbaya approach I formerly advocated. Have at it.
I’m sorry you had to be involved. This has been a problem for several years now, and I’m trying to find whatever I can do to make it stop.
@51
I think we already say the likely result in the misuse of guns, even when they are registered. If you deregulate drugs, they will ne massivley misused.
And if we outlawed gun ownership completely, we’d have a much worse situation than that. That proves my point.